Sitting of 7 January 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  SCOTLAND

    Scottish Boundary Commission
    Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: When she expects to announce the results of the Scottish boundary commission. [89136]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The commission is required to submit its report on the current parliamentary constituencies review before December 2006. It is a matter for the commission when, within that time scale, it does so.
    Mr. Donohoe: May I take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to wish you and the whole House a peaceful and good new year? I have a specific, simple question for my right hon. Friend: does she expect to fight the next general election on the new boundaries?
    Mrs. Liddell: The boundary commission has a long period in which to prepare its report—December 2006 is
    2
    quite a long way off. That is largely because the old way of working meant that its task was a scissors-and-paste job, and putting together all the maps took considerable time, but nowadays, with modern software, that need not be the case. My guess is as good as my hon. Friend's. I anticipate that the commission could report much sooner than December 2006, but it may find that it needs longer to conclude its deliberations.
    Mr. Peter Duncan: The suspicion persists that the Secretary of State plans to delay implementation of the new constituencies, thus not only securing her own precarious position but offering a shady deal to silence the siren voices of those Members behind her who are furious about her decision with regard to the Scottish Parliament. Perhaps it is not only the First Minister who has been stitched up during the Christmas recess. Will the commission's report and the orders necessary to implement it be laid before the House in time for any general election in 2005 or 2006—yes or no?
    Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman should listen; I just explained that the boundary commission does not have to report until 2006. He may choose to address his questions to that independent body. I should have thought that anyone on the Conservative Benches should be wary of talking about people being in a precarious position.
    Pete Wishart: I am sure that the Secretary of State's colleagues were looking for a great deal more comfort than she was able to provide in her reply. It sounds the death knell for many of her hon. Friends. Let me put the question a different way: does she believe that we will be contesting the next election on the new boundaries? Does she agree that the Scottish public will be appalled by her colleagues' cynical

    3
    behaviour and the naked self-interest that they are prepared to demonstrate to try to preserve their seats? The scramble for seats begins ahead of the next election.
    Mrs. Liddell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and especially for his remarks during the recess, when he expressed anxiety that I may be campaigning for the return of a Labour-led Scottish Executive in Edinburgh. I confirm that I will be doing so.
    In response to the hon. Gentleman's question, the boundary commission is completely independent, and it is up to the commission to decide when it reports. However, I make the point to the hon. Gentleman and other Members that at present the average size of a Scottish constituency is 55,000 electors, and the average size of an English constituency is 70,000, so there is clearly an imbalance.

    National Minimum Wage
    Mrs. Irene Adams: How many people in Scotland benefit from the national minimum wage. [89137]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): Some 110,000 people in Scotland have benefited from the national minimum wage since it was introduced in 1999.
    Mrs. Adams: What further action is being taken by the Government to ensure that there is high awareness of the national minimum wage among employers and employees? Will my hon. Friend undertake to meet the Scottish Low Pay Unit, Citizens Advice Scotland and the Inland Revenue to ensure that all that can be done is being done?
    Mrs. McGuire: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I know that the Scottish Affairs Committee, which she chairs, is looking to investigate home working and the minimum wage. Both the Department for Trade and Industry and the Inland Revenue are being evangelical about the minimum wage. My hon. Friend will be delighted, as I hope will the House, to hear that at the end of this month a pilot project will be launched in Scotland, in partnership with Citizens Advice Scotland, the Scottish Low Pay Unit and the Inland Revenue, to make sure not only that there is compliance but that individual workers know what their rights are.
    John Thurso: Is the Minister aware that one in 15 Scots workers who benefit from the minimum wage are under 21 and consequently on a lower rate? Given the success of the minimum wage, is it not now time to end that discrimination and give those 7,000 young Scots workers equal pay for an equal job?
    Mrs. McGuire: If I recollect the Liberal Democrats' position on the national minimum wage correctly, they were not particularly in favour of it at the time. I welcome their conversion. On younger workers, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, there is a clear direction that they should be looking at training and educational opportunities. We have gone along with the widely held
    4
    view that to introduce an adult rate before the age of 21 would be counter-productive, given the other priorities that young people have to pursue.
    Mr. Frank Roy: While I recognise that the national minimum wage has done enormous good for Scottish workers, is the Minister aware that a report published this week says that those same workers have faced assaults and threats in a third of Scottish work places? When she next meets trade unions and employers, will she undertake to bring up that very serious subject? Surely it is not right that people should feel threatened and intimidated while they strive to earn a living.
    Mrs. McGuire: I thank my hon. Friend for making that particularly important point. He is quite right—no worker should feel threatened and intimidated either going to work or while at work. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will seek to raise the matter when we next meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress and employers' organisations.

    Scotland Act
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: When she proposes to bring forward legislation to amend the Scotland Act 1998 in respect of the size of the Scottish Parliament. [89138]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I shall seek agreement to introduce legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.
    Mr. Swayne: How many indications of support has the Secretary of State had for her proposals from Labour Back Benchers?
    Mrs. Liddell: Of the replies to the consultation exercise that I undertook, there were 18 responses from hon. Members, six of which opposed the proposals—it was basically 2:1. Indeed, let me point out that the Labour party, the Co-operative party and the Scottish trade union movement all agree with my position. Only the Scottish Conservative party has stood against the proposals.
    Mr. Michael Weir: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is ludicrous that the House should determine the size of the Scottish Parliament? Will she undertake that, in the Bill on the matter, there will be provision to transfer that power to the Scottish Parliament so that in future it can determine its appropriate size?
    Mrs. Liddell: No.

    Fishing Industry
    Sir Archy Kirkwood: What plans she has to provide financial support for coastal communities affected by the reduction of fishing effort in the North sea. [89139]
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: if she will make a statement on the Scottish fishing industry. [89143]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The Government are committed to protecting the interests of the UK fishing industry. A large part of the industry has depended on fish species whose stocks have been in decline, and this has necessitated some difficult decisions on future fishing effort. The decisions taken by the European Union's Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Brussels last month will be reported to the House shortly by the fisheries Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley).
    The Government and the Scottish Executive are considering what help the industry may need to adjust to the new limits on fishing effort, and what additional help may he needed by fishing-dependent communities. As the hon. Gentlemen know, such decisions in Scotland are for the Scottish Executive.
    Sir Archy Kirkwood: I am grateful for that important answer. Will the Secretary of State personally support an approach to Treasury Ministers to try to secure a new emergency package of short-term relief on the grounds that, over the next three to six months—the cuts will be introduced in February—trying to maintain some kind of stability in the fishing industry will be difficult until a package of decommissioning can be negotiated with it?
    Mrs. Liddell: Before I reply to the hon. Gentleman, may I take the opportunity on behalf, I am sure, of the whole House, to congratulate him on his recent knighthood. All of us who have benefited from his interest in parliamentary matters have much to be grateful for. He has also comprehensively upstaged everybody who had a 30th wedding anniversary last year.
    To return to the substantive point, the hon. Gentleman should be aware that at the highest levels of Government there is considerable discussion about the kind of assistance that can be given to fishing communities and how we should deal with the next six months. The new arrangements will be introduced on 1 February, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares my view that it is essential that there is no posturing on these matters. There must be a serious effort to address the fishing communties' difficulties to ensure their long-term viability and to safeguard the industry for the future.
    Mr. Carmichael: May I welcome everything that the right hon. Lady said about Government support for the fishing industry? I hope that she will impress on her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the need to put money where the Government's mouth is. That money needs to go from the UK Treasury to the Scottish Executive, who can spend it in conjunction with the Scottish fishing industry not just on decommissioning, if that is considered necessary, but on other options including funded tie-up schemes.
    Mrs. Liddell: On the final point, there is considerable debate about funded tie-up schemes. It is anticipated that restoring stocks to the North sea will take a considerable time. There must be serious analysis of
    6
    decommissioning v. funded tie-ups, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman and his constituents that at the highest levels of government, considerable attention is being devoted to those matters. The situation is serious and there are no simple answers. The Government are determined to do what we can to assist the fishing communities.
    Miss Anne Begg: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the statement in The Scotsman today by George MacRae, secretary of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association? He said:
    "The industry has to deal with the stark reality of the result of the Brussels talks, be pragmatic and continue to work with government to improve the lot of the fishermen".
    Does my hon. Friend also agree that the finger-pointing and name-calling must stop? The only way that we will achieve a future for Scottish fishermen and the fish processors in my constituency is if the Government, the industry and the Scottish Executive all work together to make sure that there is a future for fishermen in Scotland.
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I read with great interest the comments of Mr. George MacRae this morning. He also said that while arguments about blame are inevitable to enable politicians to score points off each other, particularly in the lead-up to the 2003 elections, they will achieve nothing to help the industry. That is an extremely important point. There is a real need for people to work together to protect the fishing communities. I draw to my hon. Friend's attention the comments of Hamish Morrison, who said:
    "The Archangel Gabriel could not have negotiated a better deal"
    for the fishing industry.
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: My right hon. Friend is well aware of the deep concern in the fishing industry, among both catchers and processors, and in their dependent communities. Will she seek urgent talks with the Prime Minister and the First Minister to consider what practical assistance can be given?
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Discussions are already planned not just with the Prime Minister and the First Minister, but with representatives of the fishing communities. We share Mr. MacRae's view that it is important that we all pull together to ensure the best possible outcome for the future.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: I am glad that the Secretary of State supports the views of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, which just two days ago called for the resignation of the UK fisheries Minister. Can the Secretary of State explain how the fisheries Minister could have signed a deal that allows a fleet—the most conservation-minded fleet, fishing with 120mm mesh—nine days fishing, according to the Council regulation, while the Danish industrial fleet, fishing exactly the same waters, is allowed 23 days' fishing with hairnet mesh that destroys everything in its path? Will the proposed aid package try to protect and

    7
    preserve the fishing fleet and the fishing communities that depend on it, or will it merely try to run down the industry even further than it has been run down already?
    Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman does not help the cause of the fishermen. He is the man who called the European Fisheries Commissioner a thug and an ignoramus. Is that supposed to help us in our negotiations? The Danish fishing community has also been badly affected by the measures. We are well aware of the difficulties that all the North sea fishing communities face. [Interruption.] I wish the hon. Gentleman would stop posturing. It is important that we deal with the facts. All the decommissioning efforts being undertaken by the fishing communities in the north-east of Scotland have been taken into account in the negotiations. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we started off from a position where, come 1 January, we would have seen a total ban on fisheries in the North sea. [Interruption.] The proposal then was seven days of fishing per month—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman asked a question. The Secretary of State is entitled to reply.
    Mrs. Liddell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    The initial proposals were that fishing in the North sea would have been stopped as of now. The next proposal was for seven days of fishing per month. Now we have managed to negotiate 15 days. All that is a considerable improvement, but all the posturing in the world from the hon. Gentleman will not put one more fish into the North sea.
    Jim Sheridan: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the recent announcement by Fullerton, a computer manufacturer in Inverclyde, of its intention to close its manufacturing base, with the loss of some 500 jobs and the consequential effect of that not only on my constituency, but on that of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns), who is at this moment speaking to the unions and the management at that plant. Can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that those manufacturing communities that suffer job losses, such as those in Port Glasgow and Greenock, will receive the same financial support and resources afforded to those in the fishing communities?
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes an important point. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) is already meeting the management of another employer in the community. The Scottish Executive have announced that they will put in place the procedures that are normal in such circumstances. I share my hon. Friend's view that we should ensure that every community that is affected by unemployment is treated fairly and in a way that is sustainable for the long-term. I understand that another announcement is expected this afternoon. Commercial confidentiality prevents me from speaking about that, but I hope that the situation might prove much less bleak than people have been anticipating.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: May I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and
    8
    Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood) on his knighthood? We look forward to his continuing contribution in this House.
    The fishing tie-up starts in approximately three weeks. Will the right hon. Lady give us some indication as to whether she believes that sufficient resources will be put into the fishing industry by the beginning of February to ensure minimum disruption to the communities? Are the Government backing the call made by Scottish Conservative MEP Struan Stevenson for compensation of £100 million from the European Community?
    Mrs. Liddell: Since the conclusion of the discussions in Brussels, the Government have been very much engaged with the debate about what we can do to ensure the continuity of the fishing communities. The First Minister has met representatives of the fishing communities on a number of occasions and the Prime Minister is to meet representatives before the end of the month. I met the fisheries Minister this morning to discuss what sort of package can be made available to ensure the continuation of the fishing industry and to provide some help in the transition that is required because of these rather unfortunate times.
    Mrs. Lait: There was clearly no guarantee in that answer that an arrangement will be in place by the beginning of February. However, at the end of March, there will be discussions on long-term proposals for the North sea. What part, if any, will the right hon. Lady play in those discussions? Will the Government advocate that the UK fishery should be managed nationally?
    Mrs. Liddell: On the second point, no, there is no prospect of repatriating fisheries policy. Fish do not carry passports. The most important way forward for the fishing community is a common fisheries policy. Indeed, in all the debate about the fisheries industries, the successes that this Government have achieved in relation to the common fisheries policy have been completely overlooked. On the discussions that must take place in March in respect of the new system, and discussions post July, I have been in discussions with the fisheries Minister as recently as this morning on the line that the British Government should take.

    Cross-Border Economic Issues
    Mr. John McFall: What action she is taking to consult Scottish business and trade union interests on cross-border economic issues. [89140]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): In conjunction with the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently held a seminar involving the main Scottish business organisations and the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss the macro-economic policy directions set out in the Chancellor's pre-Budget report. My right hon. Friend plans to hold another seminar

    9
    with those organisations and other key stakeholders in the Scottish economy to provide input to the Chancellor's Budget preparations.
    Mr. McFall: As a result of the Chancellor's macroeconomic policies, we now have the highest employment in Scotland for more than a generation. Despite that, for every one job created in disadvantaged areas, three are created in the more prosperous and advantaged areas. Will the Minister ensure that Scottish business and trade unions take advantage of the initiatives for enterprise set out in the Budget, so that those in the disadvantaged areas that I and many of my colleagues represent can get the job increases into their areas?
    Mrs. McGuire: I recognise the picture that my hon. Friend paints. He will be aware that the Government aim to promote the productivity agenda in Scotland. Key to that promotion is the fact that we work together hand in hand, as both a UK Government and a Scottish Executive, to deliver improvements for the communities that have suffered historic weaknesses in terms of economic development.
    Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Does the Minister agree that most people in Scotland would prefer taxpayers' money to be spent on job creation, as two of her hon. Friends just said in their questions? As everyone has said in respect of the fishing communities, taxpayers' money would be better spent on helping people than on employing more politicians and bureaucrats and building more buildings for more and more government in Edinburgh.
    Mrs. McGuire: I am pleased to advise the hon. Lady that the Scottish people are happy to recognise that we have the highest recorded level of employment in Scotland, and the lowest unemployment count, for 27 years. That stands in stark contrast with some of the issues that we had to deal with during 18 years under her party's Government.

    Employment
    Mr. Eric Joyce: When she last met the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss employment issues. [89141]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I have regular contact with representatives of the STUC to discuss a wide range of issues. I last met the STUC general council on 2 December 2002.
    Mr. Joyce: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the great majority of jobs in the North sea are in the oil and gas industries. Does she agree that we can never take those jobs for granted, and will she commit herself to maintaining strong relationships with the STUC and the trade unions, and with employers?
    Mrs. Liddell: I spend a considerable amount of time talking to the trade unions about the North sea—of course, as a former energy Minister I have a substantial number of contacts there—but I also maintain close contact with the STUC. The North sea is going through a period of change—it faces great opportunities, as well
    10
    great challenges—and we must ensure that the Scottish economy benefits from that. Indeed, the Chancellor's introduction of 100 per cent. capital allowances for investment in the North sea is very much to be welcomed.

  The Advocate-General was asked—
  ADVOCATE-GENERAL

    Devolution
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What devolution issues she has considered since 26 November 2002. [89151]
    Mr. John Robertson: What devolution issues she has considered since 26 November 2002. [89152]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): Since 26 November, 34 devolution issue cases have been intimated to me, all but one of which related to criminal law. All of them concerned human rights issues, and a substantial number concerned undue delay in criminal proceedings. Others included cases on the law on rape; the fixing of the punishment part of the sentence of a life prisoner, to replace the old system of serving an indeterminate length of sentence; and the powers of the Crown to use surveillance tapes from prison visiting rooms. The one civil case involved delay in an appeal from the application of a children's panel reporter to the sheriff for an interim exclusion order.
    Miss McIntosh: The hon. and learned Lady was very helpful in answering my question of a month ago, saying that a procedure exists under the Scotland Act 1998, but can she explain what that procedure is? In the event that a Scottish airport sought to expand, who would take the final decision: the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Scottish Executive, or the Secretary of State for Transport?
    The Advocate-General: As I have tried to explain to the hon. Lady—I am more than happy to discuss the matter with her—the answer depends entirely on the circumstances of the particular case. We cannot speculate about a case in isolation. The Scotland Act 1998 makes provision for reserved matters and the rest are devolved, but every single case must be looked at entirely in the context of its particular circumstances. The answer to her speculative question is therefore very difficult to give, because I do not know the context in which she puts forward her request for information. However, as I said, I am more than happy to discuss the matter with her at length, at her convenience.
    John Robertson: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for her earlier answer. How many delay cases are currently outstanding, and are safeguards in place in Scotland to prevent any undue delay in trial?
    The Advocate-General: There are approximately 700 delay cases outstanding, albeit that the Appeal Court has doubtless dealt with some of them already.

    11
    However, that number must be seen in the context of the thousands of cases that proceed through the Scottish courts. I am pleased to advise my hon. Friend that a number of different procedures exist in Scots law that prevent undue delay in trial. Perhaps the most famous one is the so-called "110 day rule", which means that, in general terms, a person who is in custody in Scotland must be brought for trial within 110 days. In many ways, that piece of Scots jurisprudence has been the envy of many other jurisdictions.

    Human Rights
    Mr. Alan Reid: What human rights issues she has dealt with since 26 November 2002. [89154]
    The Advocate-General: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave a few moments ago to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). All of the devolution cases to which I referred in that answer involved human rights issues.
    Mr. Reid: I thank the Advocate-General for that answer. May I draw her attention to some of the recent actions of the state-owned Caledonian MacBrayne shipping company, which have deprived many people with disabilities of their human rights? For example, the catamaran that runs between Gourock and Dunoon is not accessible to people with disabilities. The ticketing arrangements on some vessels also discriminate against disabled people. What actions can the Government take to prevent Caledonian MacBrayne from depriving disabled people of their human rights?
    The Advocate-General: As far as my responsibility is concerned, the Government have given citizens a right of challenge if they think that their human rights under the European convention have been breached. Clearly, hon. Members would have to advise constituents as to whether legal advice was appropriate in any given case to determine whether that right of challenge should be invoked. The more general policy issue is not my responsibility, but the Government have a good record in respect of introducing protection and rights for members of the public who are disabled.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
  The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—
  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Criminal Courts System
    Mr. David Kidney: If she will make a statement on the Lord Chancellor's proposals for a unified criminal courts system and the representations that he has received in response. [89158]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette Cooper): The Auld review proposed that there should be a unified courts administration to improve the effectiveness of the courts and of the justice system. We are taking that recommendation forward, but with some modifications. Those modifications include the introduction of local courts administration
    12
    councils, which go further than the Auld recommendations. We have received a wide range of representations and continue to work closely with stakeholders on the design of the new organisation.
    Mr. Kidney: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that there needs to be a good degree of sensitivity in ensuring that the new unified courts system has a good strong local connection for management and accountability purposes? Magistrates and magistrates clerks in Stafford have a constructive attitude towards the change, provided that they are involved properly with other local stakeholders. Will my hon. Friend ensure that there will be consultation at every stage in the future, so that people feel involved in the decision-making process as well as in the system that we eventually get?
    Yvette Cooper: I welcome what my hon. Friend has said, and the response from the magistrates and clerks in Stafford. He is right to say that we are keen to involve in the design of the new system all stakeholders in the criminal justice system and the courts service. The new design must learn from and build on their experience. In particular, it must have a local aspect, which is why we have introduced the courts administration councils. For the first time, magistrates, judges and local people will be able to have a say in how all courts in an area are run.
    Mr. David Heath: Does the Lord Chancellor ever listen to the representations made to him? Will the Parliamentary Secretary confirm that the experimental night sittings will not be taken forward in the new system and that they have been abandoned after costing £5.4 million and an average of £4,000 per case? Will she confirm that all informed opinion told the Lord Chancellor that the experiment would not work—with the exception of No. 10 Downing street? What is the point of consultation if responses are not listened to?
    Yvette Cooper: The Lord Chancellor of course takes very seriously all the responses to consultation. It was right to set up the pilot programmes in Manchester and in one magistrates court in London. The final report on those programmes is yet to be published. It is true that the night courts proved disproportionately expensive, but the early-morning sittings were useful. The final conclusions have yet to be drawn, and the final decisions have yet to be taken.
    Mr. William Cash: Will the Parliamentary Secretary say how she and the Lord Chancellor intend to satisfy the profound concerns of the Central Council of Magistrates Courts Committees? The role of courts councils under the proposed model is inconsistent with clear principles of local management and accountability. As she knows, that and the weak and ineffectual consultative councils are unacceptable to the magistrates courts committees. How can she deny that the uniform court system is driven by the political objective of reducing public resources for political purposes, rather than of improving justice? The Lord Chancellor's unacceptable comments—addressed to judges and magistrates in the present and future unified

    13
    courts—that many first-time burglars should be sent to prison only as a last resort are driven by the political objective of reducing the prison population, rather—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Parliamentary Secretary should answer part of that question.
    Yvette Cooper: What a lot of nonsense. There were about eight different attempts to ask questions. The hon. Gentleman started by making a point about the Central Council of Magistrates Courts Committees. I understand its views and have had many meetings with it, but I completely disagree with it. It wants the new courts organisation to mirror the current structure of the magistrates courts committees, where 43 different organisations run the courts. That is contrary to the recommendation of Sir Robin Auld, who pointed out that having 43 different organisations running the courts led to fragmentation, division, complication and duplication of procedures.
    It is right that there should be considerable local decision making. That is why we have set up the courts administration councils, which will increase the voice of the local community for the Crown courts and county courts for the first time and extend the voice of the local community for magistrates courts, which are currently covered in the main by magistrates, not by other members of the local community.

    Voting System
    Ms Meg Munn: What recent representations the Lord Chancellor has received on changes to the voting system. [89159]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette Cooper): The Lord Chancellor's Department receives a small but steady stream of representations from organisations on changes to the voting system. In addition, we have received jointly with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister a wide range of recent responses to the consultation paper on the 2004 elections and weekend voting.
    Ms Munn: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. Has the Lord Chancellor's Department formed a view on all-postal ballots? Is there an intention to have more pilot exercises in the next lot of local elections?
    Yvette Cooper: There will indeed be more pilot exercises for all-postal voting, and they are being taken forward by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The Electoral Commission considered the previous round of pilot exercises and concluded that they had had a significant impact on raising turnout, which is an extremely important factor, but equally that more pilot exercises were needed to ensure that people could have full confidence and that there was proper security against fraud.

    Domestic Violence
    Mr. Chris Mole: What steps the Lord Chancellor is taking to strengthen his Department's support for victims of domestic violence. [89161]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton): My Department is committed to tackling domestic violence and is leading work on improving links between the civil, family and criminal law. We are taking action to give survivors of domestic violence swift and effective protection, to bring perpetrators to justice and to make sure that children's contact with their parents is safe for all family members. We are working closely with the Home Office on its recently announced consultation paper on domestic violence.
    Mr. Mole: Does the Minister agree that it is important to make people aware that allegations should be brought to the courts as soon as possible and to ensure that victims are aware of the support that the police and other agencies can give them?
    Ms Winterton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that issue. That is why we recently amended the Children Act 1998, so that the courts must take into account the effects of domestic violence when considering cases involving contact with children. However, we also want to go further, so we will ensure through secondary legislation that the courts know about and investigate any allegations of domestic violence at the start of any child contact proceedings. The court will have to decide whether domestic violence took place before considering any contact or evidence issues. If the court decides that domestic violence has taken place but still orders contact between the parent and child, reasons will have to be given as to why contact was allowed.

    Transsexual People
    Hugh Bayley: If she will make a statement about the Government's policy towards birth certificates for transsexual people. [89162]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton): On 13 December, I issued a statement, published in Hansard on 16 December, that set out our plans to give transsexual people recognition in their acquired gender, including our intention to legislate for registrars general to create a new record in relation to transsexual people.
    Hugh Bayley: I speak on behalf of three constituents who are transsexuals who have approached me because they have all had problems in relation to official documents that record their gender inappropriately. The Government have no choice but to change the law because the European Court of Human Rights has said that we must, but transsexuals, such as my constituents, still face problems. The question on their lips is not whether the Government will legislate, but when the Government will legislate.
    Ms Winterton: I fully accept the points that ray hon. Friend has made. He eloquently sets out the difficult

    15
    position in which many transsexual people find themselves. We propose to publish a draft Bill, which will be available for pre-legislative scrutiny. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot say exactly when that draft Bill will be published but my officials are currently actively engaged in bringing the work forward. Clearly, the timing of substantive legislation after the draft Bill is a matter for the Legislative Programme Committee and parliamentary business managers. It is difficult to secure time within busy legislative programmes, but I assure him that we are committed to legislating as soon as possible.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Further to the Minister's answer, is she aware of cases such as that of a constituent of mine who has been a woman for 40 years but cannot claim a woman's pension because she is shown as a man on her birth certificate? Although such people welcome the Government's overall approach, a real sense of urgency exists in relation to some of these cases. Will she bear that in mind in trying to expedite the legislation?
    Ms Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to that particular issue. I hope that he will appreciate that many issues need to be considered when drafting legislation on this matter. It is therefore important that the legislation addresses all the different aspects that are likely to arise, which is why we want to make sure that we get the legislation right.
    Miss Anne Begg: Will my hon. Friend make sure that, under any legislation that comes forward, the new certificate that will be issued to show the new gender and new name of the person will allow that person to be issued with a passport in their new gender and new name. That is an issue about which one of my constituents is most concerned.
    Ms Winterton: That will certainly be possible. At the moment, I believe that people can be issued with a different certificate, and it is more an issue of explaining why the birth certificate is different from the passport application. That is certainly one of the issues that will be addressed in the legislation.

    Voting System
    Ms Dari Taylor: What responses the Lord Chancellor has received on the document "Same day elections and weekend voting". [89163]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette Cooper): Responses to the consultation paper have to be sent to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, with whom we are jointly conducting the consultation, by the end of January 2003. By mid-December, around 100 responses had been received from local authorities, councillors, MPs and members of the public. We will consider the responses before coming to conclusions.
    Ms Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for her response. Many hon. Members, across the House, are very concerned about low turnouts, and we work hard to
    16
    legitimise politics and to make politics seem real within our communities. We are therefore very concerned when people choose not to vote. In relation to changing the system, has her Department received evidence indicating that voting at the weekend would increase participation?
    Yvette Cooper: Interestingly, very little research has been done on weekend voting, and only a small number of experiments have been done in that regard. That is why we are interested in responses to the consultation in relation to whether more trials should be conducted. For people who go to work and have kids, finding time to vote on a busy Thursday can be a real hassle. Exercising one's democratic rights and going out to vote should not be a hassle. It is therefore right that we consider ways of making it easier for people to vote, without kidding ourselves that changing the voting system will solve all the problems of turnout.

    Licensing Magistrates Courts
    Mr. Jim Cousins: Happy new year, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.] Let us start as we want to go on.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should ask Question 29.
    Mr. CousinsOn how many occasions hearings in licensing magistrates courts have had to be adjourned because of lack of space to hear objectors in each of the last three years. [89164]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette Cooper): The Lord Chancellor's Department collects nationally only the details of the number of licensing sessions held and has no detail in relation to adjourned licensing hearings or the reasons for any adjournments.
    Mr. Cousins: Happy new year again, Mr. Speaker. The season had got to me.
    May I draw to my hon. Friend's attention a most unfortunate incident that occurred in Gosforth magistrates court just before Christmas when I and more than 120 of my constituents turned up to make representations against the granting of an additional pub licence in Osborne road, Newcastle, which is becoming a kind of Blackpool of the north-east? Sufficient provision had not been made to hear the volume of objections from local people to the granting of the licence and the hearing had to be adjourned to 20 or 21 January. During the discussions on the matter, the barrister for the applicants suggested that the volume of objections was a display of mob rule. Will my hon. Friend therefore look into the incident to ensure that very important and sensitive licensing applications are properly heard and dealt with in licensing courts?
    Yvette Cooper: I shall certainly look into the case that my hon. Friend has raised. He will be aware that the Government have proposed transferring licensing responsibilities to local authorities as part of the work

    17
    being taken forward by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. In the long term, these are the issues that local authorities will need to address.

  PRIVY COUNCIL
  The President of the Council was asked—
  PRIVY COUNCIL

    Private Members' Bills
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: To ask the President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals to allow for private Members' Bills to be debated on a day other than Friday. [89167]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): The Procedure Committee has already announced an inquiry that will include the procedures for private Members' Bills and the time made available for debates on them. My right hon. Friend the President of the Council looks forward very much to its report.
    Mr. Lazarowicz: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. May I urge him and his colleagues to support positively the idea that private Members' Bills should be debated on a mid-week evening to take advantage of the time available under the new timetabling arrangements? If that were to be done, it would encourage a much bigger attendance by Members at private Members' business and it would make it easier for Members from further afield to take part in such business. If the business were properly programmed, it could also allow more private Members' Bills to be discussed and dealt with. That would therefore allow more hon. Members to enjoy the success that I had last Session when I took a private Member's Bill through the House.
    Mr. Bradshaw: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his success. He and I belong to the small and privileged club of those Members who have managed to get a private Member's Bill on to the statute book. I urge him and other Members who feel strongly about the issue to make their representations to the Procedure Committee whose deadline for evidence is at the end of this week.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: I commiserate with the Minister, who seems to have had an accident during the recess. I ask him to be totally even-handed on this matter when he considers the Government's interests and those of Back Benchers. He will recognise—and I hope that the President of the Council will too—that, since the Jopling reforms, both private Members' Bills and private Members' motions have disappeared as an effective way for Back Benchers to make their presence felt in this place. The opportunities for Back Benchers have been grossly discouraged and, to a large extent, extinguished. While the Procedure Committee is considering the specific issue of private Members' Bills,
    18
    will the Minister undertake to make representations to the President of the Council that the Modernisation Committee should also be looking at the wider issue?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I commiserate with the hon. Gentleman's constituents. As I understand it, he has announced that he will not be standing at the next election. He will be sorely missed by them.
    The Government will certainly be even-handed. We believe strongly in the principle that Back Benchers should be allowed to initiate legislation and to get it on to the statute book. Before I came into the Chamber, I took the trouble of checking the historical record, and it is not true that there is currently an historic low in the number of private Member's Bills getting on to the statute book. The number goes up and down from year to year and from decade to decade. However, the Government adhere to the principle that Back Benchers should be allowed to initiate legislation and, when the Procedure Committee's report is published, we shall consider it very carefully, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Council will take the hon. Gentleman's comments on board.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Does my hon. Friend agree that many hon. Members are effectively barred from attending Friday debates on private Member's Bills because that is the only day of the week in which they can undertake constituency duties when offices, factories and schools are open? It is essential that we have that right on a Friday for 52 weeks of the year, other than when we are on our annual holiday.
    Mr. Bradshaw: I do take that point on board and I urge my hon. Friend to make it to the Procedure Committee in any evidence that he may care to give to it.
    Mr. Greg Knight: I first wish the Minister a full and speedy recovery. I presume his injuries are a lesson to us all about the dangers of cycling.
    Does the deputy Leader of the House agree that if a Member of Parliament wishes to change the law on a subject about which he or she feels strongly, that Member should be prepared to come here on a Friday? Is not the issue part of a wider campaign by some Labour Members to get yet more time off so that they have to work only a four-day week? Does he accept that the requests for change have little to do with modernisation and are more about malingering?
    Mr. Bradshaw: No, and by the look on the faces of some of the right hon. Gentleman's Back-Bench colleagues it is clear that a number of them certainly like to take time off to do second jobs. It is worth reminding the House and, perhaps, the outside world that this Westminster House of Commons sits for more days than virtually any other legislature in the developed world. In fact, according to a survey on the number of days that legislatures in Commonwealth countries sat in 2001, this House sat on more days than any other with the exception of the legislature of the state of Borno in Nigeria.
    Sir George Young: Will the review look wider than the day on which we deal with private Member's Bills to consider the procedure as

    19
    well? If we are to make the most effective use of our time, should not we look at all the rules governing private Members' Bills because in my experience most of the time is sadly abortive?
    Mr. Bradshaw: That, I imagine, is why the Procedure Committee decided to have not a narrow, but a very broad review into the system of private Members' Bills, including their procedure and when they are debated.

    House of Lord Reform
    Hugh Bayley: To ask the President of the Council if he will make a statement about further reform of the House of Lords. [89169]
    Joyce Quin: To ask the President of the Council if he will make a statement about progress with Government plans for House of Lords Reform. [89174]
    The President of the Council (Mr. Robin Cook): The Government welcome the report from the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform and are gratefuls the work it has done. We look forward to the debates which are to be held later this month in both Houses of Parliament. The way forward on reform will be considered in the light of the outcome of the votes on the options put forward by the Joint Committee and will provide a remit to that Committee to work up a more detailed set of recommendations.
    Hugh Bayley: When I speak to Members of Parliament in central and eastern Europe, Africa and developing countries about the merits of democracy, I find it extremely difficult to explain why a Chamber of our Parliament is archaic, only partly reformed and unelected. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the worst possible option is to fail to reach agreement in this House and with the other place, and to fail to complete reform, because the status quo is untenable?
    Mr. Cook: I can understand my hon. Friend's difficulties. The House of Lords is about to have a by-election in which the sole qualification for candidates and electors is to be a hereditary peer. That is a rather eccentric version of democracy and reinforces the case for bringing real democracy to the second Chamber. I agree that the worst possible outcome would be the one that we have had too often in the past, in which we end up with no reform because the great majority who want it cannot agree among themselves on what reform to go for.
    Joyce Quin: Although I personally have strong views in favour of an elected second Chamber, as a member of the Joint Committee may I stress that its report contains a number of matters on which there is consensus and on which we can build and make rapid progress, not least on the widespread agreement about the powers of the second Chamber? Despite strongly held views, it is possible to agree even on the difficult issues of composition, as the excellent report by our Public Administration Committee showed.
    Mr. Cook: Yes, as I have observed to the House before, the Public Administration Committee report
    20
    was unanimous and showed that it was possible to find a centre of gravity among Members in favour of reform. I agree with my right hon. Friend that the report from the Joint Committee spells out the wide degree of consensus that exists on the remit, powers and scope of a second Chamber. It is now necessary to find that centre of gravity for the options for the composition of a reformed Chamber so that we can proceed with the reforms that so many in this Chamber want.
    Patrick McLoughlin: Does the Leader of the House expect to introduce legislation before 17 July this year?
    Mr. Cook: I would not expect to introduce legislation in this Session because, as I indicated to the House when I made the announcement committing us to a Joint Committee, the longer the final report of the Joint Committee took to be produced, the more difficult it would be to introduce such legislation in the current Session. I hope that we will make good speed with the debate on the Joint Committee report and with the votes and the options put forward. It is then for the Joint Committee to come forward with a report providing a detailed scheme based on whatever is the majority wish of this House and the other place. I hope that we see that report well before 17 July and that it will enable us to take forward legislation in this Parliament.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Did the right hon. Gentleman hear the Lord Chancellor say this morning on the "Today" programme that the argument was really polarised between a wholly appointed and a wholly elected second Chamber? May I ask whether that represents Government policy? If so, does the right hon. Gentleman understand that the majority of us will go for the wholly elected option?
    Mr. Cook: I arose especially early and completed my breakfast in order that I might give the Lord Chancellor my full and undivided attention. [Laughter.] May I say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Government's policy is as stated by both the Lord Chancellor and myself, and that both Houses will have a free vote? There will be seven options open to both Houses to vote on—all Members will have a free vote on those seven options, which include an all-appointed and an all-elected House and five variants in between of a mixed House. It is for the House, not the Government, to decide where the settled will is, but I very much hope that those votes will produce a commanding, convincing majority for one option that will restore momentum to reform.
    Andrew Mackinlay: Is not the importance of the Lord Chancellor's broadcast at 7 o'clock this morning the fact that it showed that there is some division in the Government on the issue? Labour Members of Parliament and other radicals in this place want the Leader of the House to tell the Lord Chancellor in unequivocal terms that we wish to see the completion of the upper House reform in this Parliament. It should not be kicked into touch by the

    21
    Lord Chancellor or by anyone else in that place, as they have done with other legislation that we were committed to when we were elected in 1997.
    Mr. Cook: I shall reflect on the precise terms in which I might convey that message to the Lord Chancellor. I put it to my hon. Friend that we have said that this matter must be resolved by Parliament. It is a parliamentary matter; the second Chamber of this Parliament is being reformed. It is therefore right for this House that the other House should have a free vote. That being the case, it would be wrong for the Government to express one single united view among the seven options available. However, it is important that we find a settled will—a centre of gravity—for reform and then all coalesce around that option for reform and make sure that this time we actually carry through the reform that has evaded Parliament for 100 years.

    Parliamentary Timetable
    Helen Jackson: To ask the President of the Council what further changes to the standard timetable of the House he is proposing during this year. [89170]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): The House has recently agreed significant changes which begin today. These include, for the first time, having an annual parliamentary calendar which will give some predictability to our timetable, a change that has been warmly welcomed by Members on both sides of the House. There are no current plans for further changes but the Modernisation Committee will, of course, monitor and assess the impact of the recent reforms.
    Helen Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He will know that I welcome the new year and the new timetable, and hope that they will both be happy for all of us. However, as we settle into the new regime, can my hon. Friend assure us that proper practices of political scheming—much loved by Members of this House—and the valuable work undertaken by the usual channels will continue and thrive under the new regime?
    Mr. Bradshaw: It is certainly beyond my powers and, I suspect, beyond the powers of any Member here to put an end to what my hon. Friend describes as political scheming.

  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—
  HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

    Select Committee Hearings
    Mr. David Kidney: What proportion of public hearings of Select Committees in this Session could be viewed by internet users in real time? [89171]
    Sir Archy Kirkwood (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): Up to this morning, there have
    22
    been 110 public meetings of Select Committees in the current Session of which 28—some 25 per cent.—were webcast.
    Mr. Kidney: How long will it be until that figure is 100 per cent?
    Sir Archy Kirkwood: It may be some time. The hon. Gentleman takes a genuine interest in those matters, and I thank him for that. He will know that a webcast experiment was conducted in 2002 through joint offices in both Houses. It involved four channels covering "gavel to gavel" proceedings in the House of Commons, the House of Lords, Westminster Hall and one Select Committee at any given time. That experiment is being reviewed. We hope to have options that flow from the review, and I hope that the Board of Management will take some decisions later this year.

  PRIVY COUNCIL
  The President of the Council was asked—
  PRIVY COUNCIL

    University Visitor
    Mr. John Bercow: Will the President of the Council make a statement on the exercise of his responsibilities as Visitor in respect of universities? [89173]
    The President of the Council (Mr. Robin Cook): As President of the Council, I exercise the role of Visitor in respect of 17 universities and colleges. In that capacity, I determine petitions from students and, occasionally, from staff who have exhausted all internal complaints and appeals procedures. I received 35 such petitions last year. None required a visit to the university concerned.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Without casting any aspersions on his academic credentials as a product of Aberdeen grammar school and Edinburgh university, does he agree that his role as Visitor in respect of a number of universities is, following Bagehot, a dignified rather than an efficient part of our constitution? Dare I say that it might be a suitable subject for consideration for reform by the Modernisation Committee?
    Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for not calling into question my academic qualifications for the post, but I can assure him—I think this will bring him some relief—that we have reached agreement with the universities on the appointment of an independent adjudicator for students. It is our intention and that of the universities that the adjudicator will be up and running for the next university session. From then on, those cases referred to me and to the other Visitors will be referred to that independent adjudicator. That simple solution will ensure that we have a proper mechanism, but one that we have negotiated in agreement with the universities themselves.

Iraq: Contingency Preparations Update
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on Iraq.
In a written statement to the House earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary set out the Government's policy objectives for Iraq. Those objectives make clear our commitment to the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and to the United Nations process. They set out our vision that Iraq should become a
"stable, united and law abiding state, within its present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or to international security, abiding by all its international obligations and providing effective and representative government for its own people."
I am confident that this is a vision which is shared by all Members of the House.
Furthermore, the statement puts our policy on Iraq in the context of the Government's wider agenda: our efforts to resolve related issues, including the middle east peace process; wider political engagement with Arab countries and the Islamic world; efforts to counter the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; and the elimination of terrorism as a force in international affairs.
Those objectives restate the Government's absolute commitment to act in conformity with international law, including the UN charter and international humanitarian law. I commend them to the House.
In publishing those objectives, the Government are restating their full and active support for UNMOVIC and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Together, those organisations have about 110 inspectors working in Iraq and have already completed more than 200 inspections. We are now looking to them to investigate urgently the gaps in Iraq's declaration of its weapons of mass destruction programmes, which, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear on 19 December, fails to give a satisfactory account of Iraq's activities in this area.
UNMOVIC and the IAEA will next report formally to the Security Council on 27 January. That is not necessarily a decision point on Iraqi compliance. In fact, under resolution 1441, UNMOVIC and the IAEA are required to report immediately to the Security Council any Iraqi interference or non-compliance. The council would then meet urgently to consider the situation. It follows that non-compliance could be declared at any time, either before or after 27 January, as a result of Iraqi failures.
While we want Iraq and Saddam Hussein to disarm voluntarily, it is evident that we will not achieve that unless we continue to present him with a clear and credible threat of force, so the policy objectives also make it clear that we must continue with military planning and preparations. Before the recess, I described to the House the contingency planning and preparatory activity that we had set in hand for that purpose. I now set out two further specific steps that we are taking.
The first step relates to reserves. On 25 November and 18 December, I explained the preparatory work that we were undertaking to identify the potential requirement
24
for reserves. Reservists play key enabling roles in support of all three services. Reservists, however, cannot be brought into active service instantly. They require notice in order to be able to set their affairs in order and to go through a mobilisation process that includes medical checks, the issuing of equipment, and any necessary training and preparation for the tasks that may be required of them.
Against that background, and to keep open a range of military options, I have today made an order under section 54(1) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to enable the call-out of reservists for possible operations against Iraq. That does not mean that a decision has been taken to commit British forces to such operations, but it is an essential enabling measure to ensure that if such operations become necessary they will be properly supported with the skills and expertise that our reserve forces provide.
Following the making of the order, the armed forces will issue call-out notices as required in order to mobilise those individuals who may be needed. That process is likely to be incremental. The overall scale of mobilisation will depend on the continuing evolution of our contingency planning. It should also be borne in mind that experience shows that the number of call-out notices issued needs to be significantly larger than the number of individual reservists likely to be required. It would therefore be misleading, as well as undesirable for reasons of operational security, for me to give specific numbers or details at this stage. However, we envisage initially sending out sufficient call-out notices to secure about 1,500 reservists, and we will issue further notices as appropriate. The Government take seriously their duty to call out reservists only when it is absolutely necessary. We understand the impact of call-out both on reservists and on their employers. I pay tribute to the valuable contribution they make to the overall strength of our armed forces.
Secondly, in my statement on 18 December, I described the long-planned deployment of naval task group 2003 to the Gulf and Asia-Pacific regions, and said that we were also considering the deployment of additional maritime forces early in the new year. I have now authorised the deployment of a number of additional vessels and units later this month, which will represent a significant amphibious capability. The group will conduct training in the Mediterranean with a view to proceeding to the Gulf region if and as required.
The objective is to ensure the readiness of a broad range of military capabilities. Preparatory steps of this nature are necessary in order to keep military options open. It is likely that we will want to make further deployments in the coming weeks for the same purpose. We are taking steps to ensure the readiness of units and equipment, and the availability of appropriate chartered shipping and air transport in which to deploy them.
The planned deployments in the next few weeks will now include the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal; the helicopter carrier HMS Ocean; the destroyers HMS Liverpool, HMS Edinburgh and HMS York; the frigate HMS Marlborough; the Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels Argus, Fort Victoria, Fort Rosalie and Fort Austin; the landing ships logistic Sir Galahad, Sir Tristram and Sir Percivale; a mine countermeasures group initially comprising HMS Grimsby and HMS Ledbury; and a submarine, as originally planned for naval task group

25
2003. We plan to deploy amphibious forces in HMS Ark Royal, HMS Ocean and associated shipping, including headquarters 3 Commando Brigade, 40 Commando Royal Marines and 42 Commando Royal Marines with all supporting elements.
None of that means that the use of force is inevitable. Despite the speculation that will arise as a result of these announcements today, it remains the case that no decision has been taken to commit those forces to action. But, as I said on 18 December, as long as Saddam's compliance with UN Security Council resolution 1441 is in doubt, as it continues to be at present, the threat of force must remain and it must be a real one.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to see his statement in advance. The House will acknowledge that such decisions as he has made today will have a dramatic effect on the lives of individuals and their families, and that those individuals might ultimately be asked to put their lives at risk. Servicemen and their families have had to endure a long period of uncertainty, fuelled by intense media speculation about the Government's policy. The whole House respects and admires our armed forces; the Government should be careful not to take them for granted.
The Opposition continue broadly to support the Government's policy towards Iraq, as set out by the Foreign Secretary. War is not inevitable, and everything should be done to try to avoid it. Even without further United Nations endorsement, British and US policy must continue to comply with international law. Moreover, if war becomes unavoidable, no effort should be spared to persuade our partners and allies in the UN Security Council to support the policy to which President Bush and the Prime Minister are so profoundly committed. Today, the Prime Minister has reiterated:
"Unless the world takes a stand on this issue of weapons of mass destruction, we will rue the consequences of our weakness."
We wholly support this stated resolve and welcome the Secretary of State's statement today, so far as it goes.
On reservists, will the Secretary of State make it clear that he is referring only to members of the Territorial Army, and not to those on the civilian regular reserve list? Will he also tell us how long those who are called up may be required to serve? What discussions has he had with their employers to mitigate the effects of their call-up on their continued employment and their career prospects? What effect will the call up of medical staff have on the national health service? Will the Government support measures to ensure that the burden is fairly spread across the whole of the NHS and not concentrated on particular hospitals? On the subject of HMS Ark Royal and the naval task group, how many service men and women does this commitment involve? What is the new total of British service men and women now committed to operations or exercises associated with possible military operations against Iraq?
26
For the House to have confidence that the Government can demonstrate what the Secretary of State refers to as the
"clear and credible threat of force",
the House is surely entitled to greater clarity from the Government on the preparations for possible military action against Iraq. Will the Secretary of State explain why the Government will not announce clearer decisions about all the forces that they intend to make available, to demonstrate how they will back the Prime Minister's words? Why, instead, do they appear to be delaying decisions about deployments and playing down our military commitment? The Secretary of State has just announced what I believe to be the largest call-out of reserves since 1991. He has announced the commitment of possibly 5,000 additional service men and women to operations. Why will he not say that? Why are these figures not included in his statement? Is it the policy of the Government to have British tanks and armoured vehicles available at the outset of possible military operations? If so, I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that the hour is already very late for such decisions.
To make a fuller announcement would not betray tactics, compromise security or set limitations on later commitments, as the Secretary of State tries to suggest. Why will the Government not explain that HMS Ark Royal and the amphibious task group are being deployed to put pressure on Saddam? That would assert the Government's resolve and commitment, and increase the pressure on Saddam to comply. In the interests of those in our armed forces who may be in the front line of military operations—some already are—will the Secretary of State assure the House that none of this present uncertainty is due to differences on the Government Benches? Are the Government truly united behind the Prime Minister's policy?
The publication in September of the Government's dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction demonstrated that the Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, clearly believe that Saddam Hussein is in breach of his UN obligations. It now seems unlikely that the UN inspectors will find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Saddam Hussein has had too much time to conceal them and to destroy the evidence. If the weapons inspectors find nothing and the United States decides to go ahead with military action in any case, what will be the Government's policy?
Mr. Hoon: I welcome what the hon. Gentleman described as his broad support for the Government's position. I will endeavour to answer his questions as best I can, given the obvious reasons why some of those points should not be addressed on the Floor of the House.
I have dealt with the question of reservists on a number of previous occasions, and l' am confident that the procedures that we have set out provide an appropriate balance between the needs of our national health service, which the hon. Gentleman rightly recognised, and the need to ensure proper medical assistance to our armed forces should that become necessary. I shall not give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that he asked for about dividing responsibility between hospitals. Clearly we have to

27
have those people who are available and who have the appropriate expertise. We are in continuing discussions with colleagues from the Department of Health with a view to ensuring that there is an appropriate division of the responsibility for meeting our needs.
I shall not set out numbers at this stage because it would simply not be appropriate. Nor would it be appropriate at this stage, as the hon. Gentleman will realise if he gives the matter a moment's thought, to indicate the kinds of capabilities that we would seek to deploy. I have previously given the House, in response to a number of questions, indications of preparations concerning main battle tanks, for example, but at this stage we have made no specific decisions as to the kinds of forces that will be deployed because none has been taken by any nation. It is important that the House realises that. It would simply not be sensible to make such decisions. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman thinks the issue through, he will appreciate why that is the case.
On the point about pressure on Saddam Hussein, that was an important part of my statement today and of my previous statements to the House. It is clearly necessary that we demonstrate to Saddam Hussein and his regime that we mean business. I should have thought that my statement clearly indicated that. At this stage, it is important that we approach these matters—I hope that this is consistent with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about our armed forces—with absolute regard to the men and women who serve in Her Majesty's armed forces. They are doing a vital job on behalf of this country, and they will continue to do so. No one takes that service for granted.
Mr. Paul Keetch: I also thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of his statement and for keeping the House informed.
Our thoughts should go out to the men and women who are preparing themselves for the possibility of going into battle. That cannot be easy for them, or indeed for their families, in this new year. The news of British troops readying themselves for potential conflict sends a clear political message to Saddam Hussein, but does the Secretary of State agree that we need to tread a very careful line? Saddam Hussein must comply with the United Nations, and the threat of force is an important part of a diplomatic effort, but if Saddam Hussein thinks that war is inevitable, is it not the case that he will have no incentive to comply?
What discussions has the Secretary of State had with our other allies concerning their preparations? Will only Britain and the US send troops to the Gulf, and if so, why? While there is still time, I impress once more on the Secretary of State the importance placed by this party and, I believe, many outside the House on a substantive vote in the House of Commons before troops go into action.
On equipment, the Secretary of State will be aware that the Gulf war and Exercise Saif Sareea gave rise to a range of problems associated with desert preparations. The link between the vaccine and Gulf war illness has been an issue. Are the Government confident that vaccines issued to servicemen today will not make them
28
ill in the future? The National Audit Office report on Saif Sareea said that the Clansman radio was unstable, so how will our soldiers communicate on the ground? Friendly fire continues to be a worry for our forces. What lessons have been learned from the past? If the Ark Royal is to be deployed, will her Sea Harriers be able to operate in the Gulf?
Finally, I stress that I am asking these questions because we believe that the Ministry of Defence must provide the best for our armed forces. Regardless of any political differences that we may have, our thoughts in the House should be with the men and women of our armed forces who are going into the unknown.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, particularly for his final observations, which I strongly support and endorse. He is certainly right—I set out in my statement the fact that Saddam Hussein's compliance is much more likely if he realises that we are prepared to use military force to support the United Nations Security Council's decisions. It is certainly important that that is communicated to him—he can be in no doubt about that, given the military preparations that we, the United States and, indeed, other countries have embarked on. The United States made a request to 50 countries for military assistance, and obviously each country is considering its position. My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the House have made clear the Government's position on any substantive resolution of the House, and there has been no change in it.
As for vaccination, a key lesson learned from the Gulf conflict was the importance of ensuring that members of the armed forces should not undergo in a short time a series of different vaccinations. That was identified as a particular cause of difficulty, and the lesson has been learned and acted upon, so that there is now a process whereby individual members do not receive a number of vaccinations in a short time frame.
As for the question of friendly fire, we are engaged in a process of ensuring that combat identification is dealt with satisfactorily. There is no single technological solution to that difficult problem, but we will acquire new equipment that will be available in time for any potential conflict in the Gulf. Obviously, I cannot go into precise details, but, as for combat identification, I can assure the House that British troops will be able to work alongside American forces entirely safely and satisfactorily.
David Winnick: Should we not bear in mind the fact that on all previous occasions the Iraqi regime has lied and lied again about weapons of mass destruction—for example, in 1995, when two of the dictator's sons-in-law defected, and the regime admitted that the information given about such weapons was actually accurate. As for military action, which we all, not just the critics, want to avoid, is it not Saddam Hussein's responsibility to do precisely what he promised to do after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991? If he gives up the weapons of mass destruction that he continues to deny having, there will be no need for any form of war whatsoever.
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is quite right—the responsibility lies with Saddam Hussein and the present

29
Iraqi regime, who have been given an opportunity under Security Council resolution 1441 to comply with the will of the international community. My hon. Friend is also right that their observance of UN resolutions has been less than satisfactory. Indeed, it is clear that a preliminary view of the declaration that they made before Christmas shows that it is seriously short on detail and lacks in particular any significant reference to a number of conclusions reached by UNSCOM as long ago as 1999.
Richard Ottaway: The Secretary of State said in his statement that the Iraqi declaration of weapons of mass destruction fails to give a satisfactory account of Iraq's activities in that area. On what basis is that assertion made?
Mr. Hoon: The detailed assessment of the declaration has yet to be completed, but as I have just indicated, on a preliminary view it is clear that there are significant gaps, not least relating to the UNSCOM report of 1999, completed after the weapons inspectors were ordered out of Iraq by Saddam Hussein. It is clear that the present declaration does not deal with significant aspects of that report from 1999.
Geraint Davies: The Lord Chancellor pointed out today that war could be averted if Saddam Hussein stood down or if the Iraqis voluntarily disarmed. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the sole ground for involving ourselves in military conflict with Iraq will be the material breach of United Nations resolution 1441, and that no other pretext will be used to commit British armed servicemen and women to a war that is designed to bring about regime change in Iraq through a pre-emptive strike?
Mr. Hoon: The Government's position is set out, not least in the statement that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made of the Government's objectives in relation to Iraq. They demonstrate that the key reason for continuing concern about Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime is their possession of weapons of mass destruction. It is crucial that they should be disarmed of those weapons. It has been made clear not only by the United States President, but by the British Prime Minister that a key aspect of that could be the removal of Saddam Hussein, and that if he left, the regime thereafter would be in a quite different position, and would be a different regime as far as the international community was concerned.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Although I welcome the readiness measures as far as they go, will the Secretary of State expand on his remarks about a wider engagement with the Arab and Islamic world? Can he say, in particular, what will happen to the Downing street initiative to extend the peace process, now that Israel has taken the decision not to allow any of the Palestinian delegates to come to this country?
Mr. Hoon: Obviously, that matter is still under discussion with Israel, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will join me and all other Members of the House in welcoming the Government's initiative as a determined effort to get the middle east peace process back on track.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: After his last statement, my right hon. Friend agreed with me that
30
if Saddam formed the impression that war was probable or inevitable, that would be a strong disincentive to disarm. Does my right hon. Friend see any risk that we might be increasing that impression and thus the chances of conflict? Does my right hon. Friend recognise that if there is an unnecessary war, any alleged additional British influence on the Bush Administration would be poor compensation for lost lives?
Mr. Hoon: I can assure my hon. Friend that if it is necessary, ultimately, to resort to military action, that then will be necessary because every other avenue has been exhausted and the opportunities given to Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime have been spurned by the Government in Iraq. It is important that we demonstrate our absolute commitment to the enforcement of Security Council resolution 1441 through the kinds of military planning and preparation that I set out to the House today.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: The Secretary of State told us of the formidable naval deployment that is to take place, and he has mentioned in the House on a number of occasions the work that is being done to make the tanks suitable for desert or semi-desert warfare. Will he therefore tell the House what he has in mind to deploy at this stage by way of armour? If he is able to reveal the extent of the naval deployment, there will be nothing to stop him speaking of the Army deployment. We know the Air Force strength. Why cannot he now confirm that a divisional headquarters and two armoured brigades will be the sort of formation that will be sent as part of Britain's formidable contribution to a war that we all hope will never have to happen?
Mr. Hoon: I am not in a position to confirm that today because that decision has yet to be taken, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that once that decision is taken, I will inform the House at the earliest possible opportunity.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: If and when American and British armour reaches Baghdad, what thinking through has there been of what happens then?
Mr. Hoon: Clearly, there is consideration, as there always is in such a prospective military operation, of what might occur thereafter. Having so recently been engaged in military operations in Afghanistan and equally in the management of the aftermath, we have some very recent experience on which to draw. I invite my hon. Friend to look carefully at the efforts that have been made by the United Kingdom, as part of the international community, to stabilise Afghanistan and provide it with very significant support as it grapples with the difficulties of rebuilding itself, its economy and ultimately, we hope, a democracy.
Mr. David Chidgey: The Secretary of State was, at best, reticent in giving us details of the impact on the NHS of the call-out of reservists. Has not the decimation of the defence medical services during the past few years, with huge shortfalls in resources as many experienced clinicians have left for better careers, led to pressure on the NHS? What is he doing to address that absolutely dire situation in our defence medical services,

31
which is putting pressure on the NHS while also leaving us having to contract out the provision of such services to support our armed forces?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has both personal and ministerial expertise in the area to which the hon. Gentleman refers, very recently completed the medical manning and retention review, which he announced to the House in November last year. The review was broadly welcomed by hon. Members as a significant contribution to dealing with the historic problems that the defence medical services undoubtedly face. It is an important step towards ensuring that both full-time and reservist medical staff are available to meet the needs of our armed forces. It has always been the case that, in major deployments, we would need to call upon the services of our reserves to ensure that proper medical assistance is available.
Paull Flynn: There is very little support and a great deal of hostility among our constituents with regard to the possibility of sacrificing a single soldier's life in the present circumstances. Other countries in Europe are taking an independent line from that taken by the President of America. Can we have a vote in this House to express the views of those constituents and to give us a chance of escaping from our present link as a junior partner with the United States in this axis of delusion?
Mr. Hoon: May I deal specifically with my hon. Friend's observation about other European nations? To my knowledge—I have been a regular visitor in recent months to most of our partner nations in the European Union—only one country has specifically ruled out the use of military force, for well-known reasons. He needs to check a little more carefully the state of public opinion in the countries that he cites before announcing it to the House. On the question of a vote, I have set out the position and it remains as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary indicated.
Mr. Robert Key: In seeking to uphold the authority of the United Nations by military force, quite rightly if necessary, does the Secretary of State agree that it would be a hollow victory, and that there would be no victory in the fight against terrorism world wide, if no progress was made on the conflict between Israel and Palestine? Will he therefore not be pushed around by the Government of Israel and remind them that there are one or two United Nations Security Council resolutions that we expect them to follow, too?
Mr. Hoon: I indicated earlier the Government's concern to ensure that progress is made on the middle east peace process. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), who has ministerial responsibility for the middle east, is present in the House and I am sure that he has heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The Government take the matter very seriously and continue to take action on it.
Jane Griffiths: My right hon. Friend referred in his statement to the preparation needed for
32
the deployment of reservists. He knows that reservists have homes, jobs and families and cannot be deployed at the drop of a weapons inspector. Does he agree with my constituents who are reservists that the current situation, which we all hope will be resolved speedily and without bloodshed, should provoke a further look at the levels of support that need to be given to reservists in future so that they can fulfil their commitment to serve their country?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's concern about reservists, and this is precisely why, for several weeks now, we have taken a careful, considered and cautious approach to their position. I am grateful for her interest, and I assure her that her observations will be taken fully into account.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: May I say to the Secretary of State that the formula whereby a decision has yet to be taken is beginning to wear a little thin, particularly in respect of the deployment of a reinforced armoured brigade? Informed commentators have been assuming for months that such a deployment will be Britain's main contribution to these operations. If a decision has indeed not been taken, that is wholly irresponsible, given the length of time needed properly to train and to form up those troops and to transport them to the region. It would help if the Secretary of State were rather more candid with the House.
Mr. Hoon: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that I am being anything other than candid with the House—but if he is, I invite him to reconsider his observation. I have already answered the question that he raises and made the position clear, and I have nothing to add to what I said earlier.
Mr. John Lyons: If the UN decides to take no military action against Iraq, will British troops join American troops in invading Iraq?
Mr. Hoon: The position of the United Nations has been set out by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. The Government would clearly prefer that there should be a second Security Council resolution, and that has been our position. However, it equally follows that it is the responsibility of the Security Council to ensure that its previous resolutions are properly upheld and properly enforced.
Sir Michael Spicer: Gaps in the declaration made by Iraq before Christmas have not been satisfactorily explained away. Will that be sufficient cause for a declaration of war?
Mr. Hoon: Resolution 1441 sets out clearly not only that it is necessary that there should be a failure properly to declare Iraq's holdings of weapons of mass destruction, but that they should not co-operate effectively with the international inspection as authorised by the resolution. However, it is important that we take time to assess properly the declaration's contents and, as I have said, to compare it with our previous knowledge of the state of the WMD programme in Iraq.
Mr. Eric Joyce: A constituent of mine is a full-time member of the Scottish Ambulance

33
Service—an organisation with a slightly unfortunate acronym—and a part-time member of the Territorial Army infantry in Scotland. My constituent is unhappy, as am I, with the fact that the stated policy of the Scottish Ambulance Service is not to release personnel for service with the armed forces where no stated legal obligation exists. Indeed, it goes further by actively discouraging TA personnel from remaining in the TA. Will the Secretary of State support me in urging the Scottish Ambulance Service to consider changing its policy?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue, which he has raised from time to time on behalf of several private sector employers that give support to their TA employees. It is important that the public sector match that, and I shall certainly take up the issue, as he suggests.
Rev. Martin Smyth: From time to time we are told that if Saddam were to step aside, that would resolve the situation. On what basis can we have confidence in such a view, bearing in mind that he heads a non-democratic regime with its own agenda?
I also want to press the Secretary of State on the preparation of our troops. I appreciate that he gave a very good answer to Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), but in the light of the changes that we read about, is the Secretary of State persuaded that every solider is being properly prepared medically for the engagement?
Mr. Hoon: On the hon. Gentleman's last question, I am confident that every effort is being made and that lessons have been learned from previous conflicts, especially in respect of operations in the Gulf. We are determined to ensure that all our armed forces have the right preparation and equipment to enable them to conduct a military operation, if that becomes necessary.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: My right hon. Friend said that the US had asked more than 50 countries for military assistance and that virtually none had ruled out military action. Will he name one other country that is taking steps similar to those that he has announced today?
Mr. Hoon: Clearly, each country must make its own response to the US. I am not aware of the responses that the US has received, but I assure my hon. Friend that a number of countries are offering assistance in different ways to the US.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the Secretary of State reflect on the fact that although a strategy of maintaining a close relationship with the US is necessary and right, it is not a sufficient justification for UK participation in a war against Iraq? Does he not understand that many people do not believe that the threat posed by Iraq is sufficiently imminent or grave to constitute a moral basis for war?
Mr. Hoon: The issue is not simply whether there is a moral basis for war, but whether there is a legal basis for it. The Government have consistently made it clear that we will take decisions based on the appropriate
34
international legal position. I am absolutely confident that, as the Government have made clear on a number of occasions previously, we will go through a proper process in the UN and internationally before we take any decisions about military action.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: I am intrigued by my right hon. Friend's view that there is a need only for a legal basis for action, not a moral basis. I hope that he will expand on that. In that context, does he agree that there must be a national consensus before we can be prepared to commit the men and women serving in our armed forces and put their lives at risk? Where is the evidence that that national consensus in favour of war exists? What evidence will he bring to the House to show that it exists before we go to war? Does my right hon. Friend accept that the prevailing mood in the country remains very sceptical and that a huge number of people believe that Britain is acting not in its own interests or in the interests of middle east peace, but solely in the interests of the relationship with the US?
Mr. Hoon: I do not think that my hon. Friend should get ahead of the position that I have set out. I have repeated consistently that the Government have taken no decision about military action. As I have explained, that will depend on the legal justification and—for the avoidance of doubt—also the moral basis. I was not suggesting in any way that the legal basis excluded the moral basis. However, in respect of my hon. Friend's remarks about consensus, the House voted overwhelmingly before the Christmas recess in support of the Government's position on UN Security Council resolution 1441. I have also pointed out that the Government have said that there would be a further vote in the House at an appropriate stage when military decisions have been taken and military action decided on.
Mr. Adrian Flook: Last October, I visited 40 Commando Royal Marines—a unit based in Taunton—when it was on a desert training exercise in the US. I spoke to a number of Marines, who all voiced concern about the quality of their equipment. They were especially worried about the reliability of the Clansman radio. By the third week of that exercise, only 22 of the 70 radios that the unit had taken were working. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that if our troops go into a theatre of war in Iraq, they will be properly equipped?
Mr. Hoon: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. As I told the House before the Christmas recess, a number of urgent operational requirements are currently being procured. That will certainly cover effective communications.
Ms Joan Walley: Although my right hon. Friend has said that war is not inevitable, may I press him still further on his medical contingency plans? Can he tell us what detailed plans exist for a medical plan, military hospitals and the requirements for convalescence that could be needed if this is pursued to its ultimate end?
Mr. Hoon: That point underlies the call-out of a number of our reservists. It is important that we have

35
the right kind of medical support for our armed forces if military action is decided on, and I can assure my hon. Friend that her remarks will be taken fully into account before any resort is made to military action.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Is the Secretary of State seriously telling the House that he believes that there is a consensus of public opinion in this country and across Europe in favour of conflict with Iraq at present? He says that the measures that he has announced today are purely enabling, but does he appreciate the concern shared by many of us that those deployments and the vastly greater deployments by the United States carry their own momentum, making conflict almost inevitable? Does he appreciate the danger of being on a conveyor belt towards war?
Mr. Hoon: I answered the question about consensus a few moments ago. I am confident that there is an overwhelming consensus in support of the Government's policy on Iraq. At each stage, the Government have sought to set out their policy clearly to the House and, indeed, to the country, and that has been strongly supported. I do not believe that there is any inevitability about conflict, not least involving the United States, because it is in no different position from that of the United Kingdom in that it agreed to a United Nations process and it wants that process to be properly implemented and enforced.
Richard Burden: I welcome what Ministers have said today about the need to broaden the agenda beyond Iraq and I join other hon. Members in urging Ministers not to be deflected from pursuing a just peace for Israel and Palestine. However, on Iraq, may I tell the Secretary of State that many of us want the weapons inspectors to succeed? Although we accept the need to keep the pressure on Saddam, we are worried about others using that as a pretext and a cover to get to 27 January and then to call time on those weapons inspections in support of adopting pre-emptive strikes, to which this House has not signed up. What reassurance can he give me on that?
Mr. Hoon: I can give my hon. Friend the reassurance that he will find in the speech made by the President of the United States at the United Nations General Assembly on 12 September, when he committed his country to a UN process, negotiated a Security Council resolution, and sought at every stage to ensure that it is properly enforced. That continues to be the policy of the United States and, indeed, of the United Kingdom.
Mr. James Paice: Notwithstanding other hon. Members' comments about public opinion from the perspective of those who oppose war, does the Secretary of State understand the concern among many of us who broadly support the Government's policy that the British public do not really understand what this is all about and that, if it does lead to war, the Government have a huge task ahead to convince the British people that they are doing
36
the right thing? I suspect that there has not been an occasion of British deployment for many decades that has had less support from the public.
Mr. Hoon: I do not accept that, but I recognise, as I have sought to explain to the House, that this is a step-by-step process and that it is not possible to secure overwhelming public support for military action before the explanation for that military action has been given and, therefore, before the justification for that military action has been identified. We have not yet reached that point in the process, and unless and until we do I accept that we cannot explain the justification for military action.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will my right hon. Friend concede that it would help the moral basis for war if one of the Government's stated objectives was to form a democratic Government in Iraq? The Government's stated objective is to have a unified Iraq, but not to have an Iraq whose Government reflect the will of the people. Given that former British Governments have helped to hinder and frustrate the development of democracy in Iraq, would not it be right for the Government today to say that their objective is to form a democratic Government in Iraq? Of course, we remember the promises that were hinted at about democracy in Kuwait.
Mr. Hoon: I refer my hon. Friend to the written statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary earlier today, to which I referred in my statement, in which we have set out our objectives in relation to Iraq, which include, among others, providing effective and representative Government for the people of Iraq.
Sue Doughty: I share with other Members a deep concern for our servicemen and women who do not know what the future holds for them—and for innocent men and women in Iraq, too, who do not know what the future holds. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that as our Government and that of the United States work with other countries to provide a peaceful solution—or, if they see it as necessary, a military solution—other benefits of war, such as Iraq's reserves, will form no part of those negotiations?
Mr. Hoon: That is the Government's position, and I make it clear to the House, as I have done already, that the basis for our concern about Saddam Hussein's regime involves his possession of weapons of mass destruction. Our objective is to remove those weapons of mass destruction from his control.
Glenda Jackson: As, I presume, it will take a defined time to prepare reservists for possible military action, was today's announcement triggered by evidence from the UN inspectors of a possible material breach, or by the United States Administration's clear belief that a successful attack against Iraq must begin in February?
Mr. Hoon: It was triggered by the need to ensure that if there is to be military action to enforce the decisions of the UN Security Council, the United Kingdom is ready and able to play its part.
Mr. Peter Viggers: As our service personnel shape up to their duties with courage and

37
determination, will the Secretary of State undertake to bear that in mind when pay and conditions are next considered? Many feel that the special factors in service life are not fully reflected in pay and conditions, and that it is not reasonable, for instance, that some personnel should be paid several thousands pounds a year less than firefighters.
Mr. Hoon: That is a matter for the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, to which I gave evidence before the Christmas recess. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's observations and I am sure that they will be taken fully into account by the body before it produces its report.
Mr. Harry Barnes: It is a long time since I was last in Iraq—it was during the Suez crisis of 1956. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, at that time, a whole host of reservists refused to be called up? Does he feel that, in the absence of a consensus, he might face that problem again? If so, what are his contingency plans?
Mr. Hoon: Certainly, we have sought to take into account, in the careful way in which we have approached the question of reservists, their particular and individual circumstances. I certainly take my hon. Friend's observations into account, although, at the time, I was not in a position to match his service.
Mr. Mark Prisk: The Secretary of State omitted to mention in his statement the F/A2 Sea Harrier and its deployment. Was that omission intentional? Alternatively, does it mean that the Secretary of State is now sending our Royal Navy taskforce to sea and possibly to conflict without a single jet engine designed to provide air defence?
Mr. Hoon: As I explained to the House, the task group that will be deployed will essentially be a helicopter-carrying task group, and HMS Ark Royal will be deployed in that role.
Mike Gapes: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, yesterday, Saddam Hussein referred to the UN inspectors as spies. Will he assure me that as the inspectors carry out their work over the next three weeks and, if necessary, beyond 27 January, they will be given full protection and support and whatever assistance they need to find what is being hidden in Iraq?
Mr. Hoon: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I do not believe that the House should take notice of typical bluster by Saddam Hussein. A very determined effort has been made in the design and operation of the work being carried out by UNMOVIC to avoid some of the mistakes made in the past in relation to UNSCOM and previous inspections. I can give him the assurance that this country and other countries will fully support the efforts of the weapons inspectors.
Dr. John Pugh: Given the degree of scepticism world wide and in the House, who in the view
38
of the Government is now the ultimate judge of whether Saddam Hussein has complied with resolution 1441? Is it or is it not the United Nations?
Mr. Hoon: It is clear from Security Council resolution 1441 that there will have to be a further discussion in the Security Council before any such determination is reached.
Harry Cohen: May I probe further on the comments that the Lord Chancellor made on the "Today" programme this morning? Was he correct in saying that war could be averted by either Iraq disarming or, separately, Saddam Hussein standing down? In the latter instance, why would weapons of mass destruction not be a factor that warrants war? Why and when did regime change become a purpose of the Government's war preparations?
Mr. Hoon: The objective is the disarming of Saddam Hussein and his regime. If he were to stand down—we believe that that would enormously improve the situation in Iraq and advance regional security and stability—that would clearly produce a very different regime in Iraq. We would want to see that any succeeding regime was not a threat and did not rely on weapons of mass destruction, so the removal of weapons of mass destruction from the control of the regime remains a prerequisite. However, as the US President has made clear, Iraq without Saddam Hussein would be a very different country indeed.
Norman Lamb: I noted the Secretary of State's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) on the question of energy supplies. The Guardian this morning reports that the Foreign Secretary admitted yesterday in a speech to ambassadors that security of energy sources is a key element of British foreign policy and yet there is no reference at all to that in either the Secretary of State's statement or in the earlier written statement from the Foreign Secretary. Is it credible to suggest that that issue is a key priority of British foreign policy and yet plays no part in the Government's thinking on the country that has the second largest oil reserves of any country in the world?
Mr. Hoon: May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he reads the entirety of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's speech? I am sure that it is available on the Foreign Office website and the hon. Gentleman can look at the whole speech rather than relying on the rather tendentious account of it in The Guardian this morning.
Kevin Brennan: Will my right hon. Friend explain to the House what is meant by the phrase "full and active support" for the United Nations weapons inspectors, unless it means that, without a positive report from the inspectors of breaches by Iraq, British forces will not he committed into conflict?
Mr. Hoon: We have made clear the importance of all members of the international community supporting the work of the weapons inspectors. In practical terms, for example, that has meant that the United Kingdom has made available certain equipment to the inspectors

39
pending their ability to procure equipment for themselves. "Full and active support" means not only supporting their work in principle, as is consistent with Security Council resolution 1441, but providing the practical assistance that will allow their work to be completed successfully.
Dr. Vincent Cable: Will the Secretary of State confirm the recent estimate of the Royal United Services Institute that a reasonable estimate for the cost of full British participation in a military operation in the Gulf will be about £5 million, rather than the £1 billion that the Government have set aside so far?
Mr. Hoon: I have not seen that detailed estimate. We have set aside the spending that is necessary to ensure that we have the required equipment. All military operations require some short-term urgent spending, and that has certainly been necessary for preparations for any possible operations in Iraq. However, I am not yet in a position to give the hon. Gentleman any fuller picture of the overall cost because, as yet, those costs have not arisen.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the new year exercise that you have given me this afternoon. [Interruption.] Bobbing up and down to ask a question, I mean. I see that the Secretary of State has cottoned on.
Before Christmas, I asked how many reservists were employed in the national health service as doctors and nurses. The Minister gave me a guesstimate and promised to write to me, which he did. He said:
"I am afraid that the figures I gave you at the time were inaccurate. We hold no record of the number of Volunteer Reserve Forces or former Service personnel with a recall liability who are working within the NHS."
The Secretary of State implied today, however, that he knows the figures. Does he think that it is important for the NHS and MPs, with our local hospitals to consider, to know how many people working in the NHS have had call-out notices, and what effect that will have on the treatment of our constituents?
Mr. Hoon: I indicated that the number of reservists that we are aiming to have available—in the short-term, at any rate—is 1,500. I also indicated that we are aware that that will have an impact on our hospital services, and the Department of Health and the Ministry of Defence have discussed it for some weeks. It is not necessary for me to deal with the matter in more detail than is set out by my right hon. Friend in the correspondence.

Points of Order
4.31 pm
Mr. James Paice: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has come to my attention during the course of the afternoon that British security forces have today discovered supplies of the lethal toxic ricin in properties in Wood Green. Arrests have been made and there are obviously suspicions of links with terrorist organisations. Have you received a request from a Minister to make a statement to the House, not least so that we can congratulate the security forces on their diligence? If not, perhaps we can seek such a statement through you during the rest of today's proceedings.
Mr. Speaker: I have received no such approach from any Minister.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Under Standing Order 24, I beg to move the need for the House of Commons to debate measures announced today by the Secretary of State for Defence—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Under Standing Order 24, the hon. Gentleman must seek the Speaker's permission: he did so today and I refused. Perhaps he could try another day.
Mr. Dalyell: I did so on the understanding not that you refused my request, but that you properly and understandably said that you wished to hear the Secretary of State's statement first. It is against that background that I press my request. The fact is that he did not answer the crucial question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) about whether Britain would go ahead with the United States in the event that the United Nations did not support—
Mr. Speaker: Order. All I say to the hon. Gentleman is that the Secretary of State has made a statement. I do not give reasons why I refuse a Standing Order 24 application. The fact of the matter is that I have refused such a request. The hon. Gentleman knows that he can make such an application another day. Perhaps I will be in a better mood then.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to tax your patience because, as you know, I have the greatest respect for you personally and for the office that you hold, but I am raising urgent matters indeed and by Saturday it will be too late. Surely the urgency of a war-and-peace situation takes precedence over health in Wales, albeit an important subject. It is terrible that the House of Commons is not able to discuss those issues on a substantive motion when we can do something about them. After all—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman. He knows the procedures of the House very well—indeed, he taught me a great deal about them. There is nothing to stop him making an application again tomorrow or the day after. I hope that he will not

41
wish to pursue the matter further because he well knows that I am bound by the rules that the House has given me.
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had any indication that the Minister responsible for fisheries wishes to make a statement on the outcome of the European Council meeting that took place during the recess, given that the outcome has such enormous implications for so many coastal communities, particularly in Scotland and Yorkshire? Instead, the House has had to be satisfied with one answer from the Secretary of State from Scotland. As the right hon. Lady was not even present at the Fisheries Council, her knowledge of the subject is somewhat limited.
Mr. Speaker: There will be a full debate next week.
Mr. Julian Brazier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the widespread concern about flooding, has the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs indicated that she wishes to make a statement on flooding? In and close to my constituency there have been no fewer than 10 breaches of the River Stour, and I understand that another three or four inches of rain will put hundreds of houses in my constituency at risk.
Mr. David Wilshire: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received any indication on whether the Government are giving serious thought to making a statement? It would be churlish not to congratulate the Environment Agency on its flood relief works, but one implication of it is that my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) and I seem to have collected all the floodwater that has been relieved from Maidenhead and up the Thames, and we now have a very serious flooding and sewage problem in our constituencies.
Mr. Speaker: I acknowledge the great distress of many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. There was flooding in my constituency last summer, and it is a difficult situation for everyone concerned. I hope that Ministers take note of the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentlemen.
Mr. Bill Wiggin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have in my hand a letter to you asking whether I might catch your eye on Thursday in the debate on the Health (Wales) Bill. Perhaps you could intimate to the House whether that Bill could be put to one side in order for the Standing Order referred to by the Father of the House to take precedence.
Mr. Speaker: I have learned that we take one day at a time in this House.

Health and Safety at Work (Amendment)
4.38 pm
Lawrie Quinn: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 to provide for increased penalties for offences under that Act and under the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969.
As a trainee civil engineer more than 30 years ago, I quickly recognised the importance of health and safety at work, especially the contribution of the 1974 Act. The workplace in which I was employed before I entered Parliament in May 1997 was indeed very dangerous, combining, as it did, work in the construction and transport industries. That unlikely combination magnified the risks that I and my fellow workers faced in our environment. Any study of health and safety statistics will show that the combination of construction and transport work can be lethal. Without a doubt, that experience cultivated my personal and political interest in matters of safety in the workplace.
Sadly, in the 19 years that I worked before I entered this House, I encountered far too many accidents on site. On several occasions, I also encountered the tragedy of fatalities.
Subsequently, I had to attend funerals and present evidence to inquiries. I also met the families and friends of the deceased, long after the death in the workplace had occurred, and there were questions that simply could not be answered—questions that always started with the short word "why". Therefore, the House will recognise why I—along with, I hope, everyone in the Chamber—am passionate about safety in the workplace. The reasons are self-evident.
I believe that the 1974 legislation has served not only working people but the wider community with great success. Over the past three decades, Parliament has sat back and let the Act do its proper job, but it needs to re-engage on this important subject by revisiting the legislation and revitalising a workhorse that has served the nation and working people well for 30 years. So, through the first ten-minute Bill of the new year, I hope to ask Parliament in 2003 to help to celebrate the Act's great achievements by bringing key sections up to date to reflect the realities of today's workplaces and by strengthening the penalties for those persons who are responsible for taking unnecessary risks with safety on sites and throughout the workplaces of this nation.
My Bill would remove the cap on fines for breaches of health and safety laws, which is set at £20,000, for a range of so-called less serious offences. In my view, each offence is serious. The Bill would extend the possibility of making prison the punishment for all breaches of health and safety law, whereas currently only breaches of a few sections of the Act are punishable by imprisonment. It would also significantly increase the fine for not having employer liability insurance, as required by the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969.
What would the Bill do to improve health and safety? I believe that these measures, which were first identified in the consultation on the revitalising health and safety strategy, launched in June 2000 by my right hon. Friend

43
the Deputy Prime Minister and the Health and Safety Commission, would take the debate forward and enable Parliament to consider it.
Without doubt, the reason for proposing the changes is a prevailing concern that is shared by the TUC, the nation's insurance industry and many Members of the House—that such health and safety offences are treated less seriously than they ought to be by employers, the courts and, ultimately, the wider public, which means that there is an incentive to ignore the law. That law is not strong enough, and we must ensure that we do not simply allow a plateau to develop due to the success achieved in improving health and safety throughout British workplaces over three decades leveling off.
Indeed, statistics for 2000–01 pulled together by the Health and Safety Executive show that more than 28,000 major injuries occurred in workplaces around our nation, as did some 300 fatalities. The House should be very concerned about those statistics and I hope that this ten-minute Bill will lead to action against the terrible scandal that faces our nation.
In particular, the measures on imprisonment that I propose would bring health and safety in line with more modern legislation such as that on the environment and food safety. For example, the 1974 Act was introduced well before the development of current thinking on corporate accountability and was based on the supposition, which was correct way back in the 1970s, that employers would improve health and safety standards because of the new law. Such a message from Parliament would spur employers on to taking real measures to achieve a safer working environment for our people.
Why do I focus especially on the need to improve the situation as regards employers' liability insurance? It is because, like many Members, I am being presented with an increasing body of evidence, which has been rehearsed many times in the House during the past year, that recent rises in employers' liability insurance have persuaded some small firms that they would be far better off not taking out insurance at all.
In my constituency work, I have been concerned to find that small companies were refused insurance cover or that they faced demands for excessive increased premiums from their insurance brokers despite excellent safety records over several decades of profitable trading. If such high-quality companies were even tempted to break the law in the fashion that I described, the effect
44
on employees would be catastrophic because if there was a serious accident the company would have no insurance cover to pay compensation. If the damages were large, the victim could be left with nothing.
Bills for damages of millions of pounds would have an impact on the wider community and the public interest. Parliament cannot sit back and wait for such accidents to happen.
I firmly believe that Parliament wants to ensure that good employers are supported and helped and that they are not undermined. The so-called cowboy employer mentality should belong in the last century—if not in the one before that. It is extremely important that bad employers are deterred from such practices and encouraged to take proper measures in their workplaces.
From my own workplace experiences, I know that, if the conditions were right, most employers would adopt good health and safety practices and their firms would become better. They would become more profitable and would make a better contribution to the prosperity of our nation. However, unless we have a legal framework that supports and encourages good behaviour, and punishes bad behaviour, Parliament will be neglecting its obvious responsibilities.
Many Members have done much to contribute to the health and safety at work agenda. I single out my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) and for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) for their work in the all-party occupational safety and health group, but many Members also recognise the importance of that agenda.
I hope that the House will allow me to take my Bill forward as it will make an important contribution to improving the framework for safety at work.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Lawrie Quinn, Mr. Tony Lloyd, Mr. Michael Clapham, Mr. Roy Beggs, Mr. Frank Doran, Mr. Richard Allan, Mr. Bob Laxton, Ian Stewart, Mr. Malcolm Savidge and Rob Marris.

Health and Safety at Work (Amendment)
  HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK (AMENDMENT)
  Lawrie Quinn accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 to provide for increased penalties for offences under that Act and under the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 31 January, and to be printed [Bill 37].

Local Government Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
4.49 pm
The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Local government performs a vital function in the life of our country. Local authorities between them account for about 25 per cent. of all public expenditure in England and Wales. Local authorities deliver a wide range of services that are vital to the well-being of local communities and individuals and are uniquely well placed to reflect and represent the concerns and aspirations of the people living and working in their areas.
Just over a year ago, in our White Paper, "Strong Local Leadership; Quality Public Services", we set out our ambitious agenda for the future of local government. Two key themes lie at the heart of that agenda. The first is the need to devolve power and responsibility to local authorities. The second is the importance of driving up standards of delivery in every local authority area. The two are inextricably linked.
The last decades of the 20th century were, sadly, characterised by excessive centralisation. Local authority powers were progressively curtailed and eroded while central Government sought to exercise ever-greater supervision and direction over the minutiae of local government activity. The Conservatives now seek to present themselves as being in favour of devolution, at least in respect of local authorities. It is always good to see sinners who have recognised the need to repent, but there are many people in local government with long memories who find the current posture of the official Opposition difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile with their entirely different behaviour when they were in power. It will take more than a few airy speeches to wash away the long record of heavy-handed centralisation and contempt for local democracy that marked the Conservative years in government.
This Government want to see local authorities succeed. We want to help councillors and council officers to deliver the strong local leadership that people expect from their council, and the quality services that everyone has the right to expect. Our White Paper set out a range of measures to help to achieve those goals, including a new performance management framework, on which the Audit Commission delivered its first comprehensive performance assessments just before Christmas, and a range of deregulatory measures designed to give local authorities more freedom to succeed and more incentives to drive up service standards. The Bill is one further important step along that road. It gives effect to all the commitments requiring legislation set out in the 2001 White Paper, and introduces measures to remove unnecessary and
46
outdated bureaucracy and red tape, and to help those working at local level to respond to changing needs and demands.
Mr. Eric Pickles: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the Select Committee report commented on the amount of regulations that would be used to bring these measures into being, and recommended that most of those regulations should be made available in draft form to the Standing Committee. Will he tell us when these important regulations will be made available?
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point. As I said to the Select Committee, we intend to make available to the Standing Committee, by the time it comes to consider each of the relevant passages of the Bill, the main regulations in draft that will apply to those passages, or—I make one caveat—in certain respects, particularly relating to the business improvement district programme, the guidance that we propose to issue that will inform the regulations. The reason for that is that the business improvement measures represent an innovative approach, and we intend the regulations to enable changes to be made in due course, but we do not want to be too prescriptive. That is why we are using the regulatory framework rather than putting detailed prescriptions in legislation, but we will issue guidance to illustrate how we expect the business improvement district programme to be taken forward.
The Bill covers both England and Wales. It responds to a number of requests made by the Welsh Assembly for specific Welsh provision. The Welsh Assembly supports the Bill, and has welcomed its introduction. The Bill has been the subject of extensive consultation, and, indeed, was preceded by a draft Bill published last summer and scrutinised by the Urban Affairs Sub-Committee of the then Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions. Of course, areas of concern arose from the consultation, and we have gone some way towards meeting those concerns. Most notably, we removed one of the most controversial measures, which originally proposed to merge revenue support grant and national non-domestic rates.
I turn now to the substance of the Bill. Part 1 makes a fundamental change—
Andrew Bennett: I am grateful for some of the changes that were made as a result of the Select Committee's recommendations. Before my right hon. Friend outlines all the measures in the Bill, will he tell us more about one or two of the things that have been left out? Will he tell us also when he envisages those measures being inserted in the Bill during consideration in Committee? I have in mind especially the controversial issues that arise from section 28. Secondly, there is the registration of landlords. Local authorities would very much like that power when dealing with empty homes.
Mr. Raynsford: As my hon. Friend knows, we have given effect to all the legislative commitments in the White Paper, and that was our objective. Perfectly rightly and properly, there is concern about section 28 and other measures. The Government will support a

47
suitable amendment to repeal section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, if one is tabled. We regard section 28 as an unnecessary piece of legislation.
Kali Mountford: I welcome the steer that my right hon. Friend has given the House. Is he saying that the Government would be minded to accept an amendment during consideration of the Bill?
Mr. Raynsford: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend exactly that assurance. We will support a suitable amendment to repeal section 28. As I have said, it is an unnecessary piece of legislation.
Mr. Edward Davey: Why will the Government not table their own amendment? Why will they say that an amendment is not appropriate in their eyes? If they are to make that judgment, the Government should table one.
Mr. Raynsford: As I have explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), the Chairman of the Select Committee, we have been working extremely hard to give effect to all the legislative commitments in our White Paper. The Bill fundamentally deals with local government finance. The hon. Gentleman will fully understand—I know that he will have studied the Bill—that many measures are involved, and we have concentrated on putting them in place. We have always made it clear that if suitable amendments are introduced in respect of other measures, we shall be prepared to be sympathetic. That applies especially to section 28. I have given a clear indication to the Chairman of the Select Committee and to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) that the Government will consider an appropriately framed amendment sympathetically.
Mr. John Battle: While my right hon. Friend is displaying an open and magnanimous spirit, is he aware that the Bill offers an opportunity to tackle the issue of private landlords? Would he be similarly open-minded and magnanimous in accepting an amendment that dealt with that issue? I suspect that there will be no other opportunity, unless he can assure me otherwise, to tackle the matter.
Mr. Raynsford: Housing provisions are the subject of separate legislation that is being prepared by the Department. I know that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will want to say more about that in the near future. We have an important agenda in proceeding with the finance measures set out in the Bill. We do not want to overload the Bill with a large number of measures, especially when there are other options for achieving my hon. Friend's legislative objective.
Mr. John Bercow: May I tell the Minister that if the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) tables an amendment to secure the repeal of section 28, I shall certainly support it? Some time ago, I came to believe that section 28 is gratuitously offensive. It causes justified resentment and should, in the interests of fairness and decency, be urgently repealed.
Mr. Raynsford: I am happy to say to the hon. Gentleman that I wholly concur with his view. We see no
48
useful purpose for section 28. Contrary to the views that are often expressed, it does not have an effect in relation to what is taught in schools. There are separate provisions to cover that. As he rightly stated, it gives considerable offence to many people whose lifestyle is stigmatised by the provision. We regard it as unnecessary and undesirable. We shall support an appropriate amendment to achieve its repeal.
Mr. Andrew Turner: In that case, why did the right hon. Gentleman not include the provision in the Bill?
Mr. Raynsford: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman clearly was not listening when I answered precisely that question from the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey).
Mr. David Curry: If the Government do not, on balance, like a provision, but do not have a very strong view on it, it is legitimate for them to say that they will open themselves to persuasion by a Back Bencher. However, if the Government fundamentally believe that a measure is wrong, as the Minister has just stated repeatedly in this case, it is sheer gutlessness not to try to repeal it by tabling an amendment with their names attached.
Mr. Raynsford: I have a lot of respect for the right hon. Gentleman, who has done the job that I am doing now. He will know that putting legislation together is complex. When one has many competing claims for provisions to be included and there is a White Paper with a series of important commitments that need to be implemented, it is right and proper that the Government should concentrate on those. He will know also that it is perfectly reasonable to seize opportunities for change that may be presented by amendments tabled by Back Benchers in Committee. I seem to recall, when I was in Opposition, moving amendments in Committee that were, in some cases, at least temporarily successful in changing legislation for which he was responsible. That is a proper part of the process.
Dr. Evan Harris: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Raynsford: I intend to make progress, as we have dealt with this matter at considerable length.
Part 1 makes a fundamental change to the way in which local authorities borrow to support capital investment. It ends the current consent regime that requires authorities to obtain Government approval for all borrowing. In future, local authorities will be free to borrow without Government consent if they can afford to service the debt without extra Government support. We will, of course, continue to support the major part of authorities' capital programmes, but authorities will be free to use their self-financed borrowing for any kind of capital spending—that is on buying, building and improving property and infrastructure.
There are many ways in which councils will be able to use those new freedoms. They could include, for example, major social services schemes such as improvements to residential care homes and grants to voluntary organisations for family centres. They could

49
involve environmental schemes to encourage household recycling. There could be an emphasis on crime prevention measures such as improving street lighting and car park security. Those are random examples. Authorities will have complete discretion as to how they apply that new freedom.
Local authorities must accept that those freedoms go hand in hand with a responsibility to act in a way that ensures high standards of financial management. That is why we have retained reserve powers and are setting out specific obligations to monitor financial performance and maintain prudent reserves.
Mrs. Angela Browning: Forty-five local authorities already demonstrate excellent prudential management because they are debt-free, yet clause 11(2)(b) seeks to prevent them from being able to manage those assets and to decide their priorities for them. The Minister wants to sequestrate them and spend them on local authorities who have not managed their budget well. Surely that is not about devolving responsibility to local government.
Mr. Raynsford: No, I am afraid that the hon. Lady has got completely the wrong end of the stick. Some authorities happen to be debt-free because of good fortune, not good financial management. Some happen to have inherited assets. For example, a number of new towns have housing stock that they did not have to incur debt to acquire. Others may have been remiss in meeting responsibilities in their area, so they simply have not incurred debt. The suggestion that there is an absolute parallel between efficient management and debt-free status is not accurate. Also, the provision for capital receipts applies to all other local authorities where a proportion of receipts currently has to be set aside. We are ending that provision, and instead there will be a pooling mechanism. If it is right that all other authorities in the country should be part of a pooling mechanism, I can see no logical reason why debt-free authorities should not be part of it too. She does some special pleading, but she will have to do better.
Mr. Tony McWalter: As a Member for a new town, I think that my right hon. Friend should be aware that concern about clause 11(2)(b) does not come only from Members on one side of the House. The Bill incorporates a system by which a new town is considered to have been given a wonderful windfall, which means that its borough council must pay £10 million a year back to the Treasury from its own resources by 2010. The idea that that is fair falls badly on the ears of my constituents, who live in a town that is 50 years old and whose entire fabric is falling into disarray, as the Select Committee has recognised. My right hon. Friend should be aware that these matters cause anger among Members of all parties.
Mr. Raynsford: I must tell my hon. Friend that to some extent he has misunderstood the arrangements, which will ensure that there is continued increased investment in housing—I know that that is dear to his heart. We have already increased housing capital investment by a factor of two and a half since we came to office. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will make a further announcement when the communities plan is announced later this year.
50
On capital receipts, where an authority needs to spend for the reasons that my hon. Friend outlined, those needs will be taken fully into account when we determine the sums to be made available. There is no reason at all why he should be afraid about a loss of spending capacity in an area that genuinely needs to spend on housing and intends to use its capital receipts for that purpose.
There is a different issue concerning authorities that have received substantial capital receipts but not applied them to housing investment. For example, Ashford has received more than double the amount in capital receipts in the past three years that it has spent on housing investment. When there is a genuine need for housing investment, it is curious that authorities with considerable assets but no apparent enthusiasm to spend them to meet housing need can keep their council tax down by using those sums for other purposes. It is therefore right to have a mechanism to make the best use of those receipts to meet the needs that arise.
Mr. Patrick Hall: My right hon. Friend mentioned incentives. Does he accept that a debt-free housing authority such as Bedford borough council views the prospect of the withdrawal of the local authority social housing grant as a disincentive to invest in the social housing sector? It earmarked all its capital receipts for housing on the basis that an equivalent sum would be repaid for use in the general capital account. Will he address that possible loss of incentive?
Mr. Raynsford: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter), we have already made it clear that authorities with a genuine need to spend on housing investment can look forward to the new framework with confidence. We intend to take those needs into account when we determine the arrangements that will he announced by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister when the communities plan is introduced. However, there is no reason for local authorities to feel nervous about any reduction in housing investment. We are seeking to increase investment and make sure that assets are used for that purpose. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) heard me say, we are obviously concerned about authorities that have received substantial receipts but have not used them for necessary investment.
Barbara Follett: I thank my right hon. Friend for assurances that new towns such as Stevenage will not lose much-needed housing money. However, does he realise the effect that delaying the announcement of the amount that they will receive in capital receipts is having both on their ability to plan ahead and his stated aim of devolving power to local authorities? It is taking power away from local authorities, and there is a lot of resentment in Stevenage about that.
Mr. Raynsford: I fully understand the concerns voiced by Stevenage—indeed, I met a delegation from there. However, I put it to my hon. Friend in the nicest possible way that perhaps she could tell her colleagues in Stevenage that, according to our records, it has received £14.4 million more in capital receipts over the past three

51
years than it has applied to housing investment. Her colleagues may wish to consider that before making more representations.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: While the Minister is commenting on the redistribution of pooled housing capital receipts, will he also comment on clause 90, which redistributes the surplus from some local authorities' housing revenue accounts to local authorities that have managed their housing revenue accounts badly and are in deficit? How is that amount of redistribution justified in the Bill?
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman should remember that the current framework for housing revenue accounts was introduced by his party when it was in government and contained precisely that provision. The only difference was that the housing revenue account framework that his party put into effect included housing benefit in the housing revenue account. That has caused considerable anxiety and resentment among local authorities and we are removing the provision. We are introducing proper resource accounting, an approach that I believe the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), who leads for the Opposition and previously chaired the Public Accounts Committee, strongly recommends. That is the purpose. We are separating benefit from the housing revenue account. I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that.
The new duties imposed in part 2 are no more than any well-managed local authority would do anyway, but by making those duties statutory, we are making it clear that we will accept nothing less than sound budget setting and monitoring and prudent financial management. Although most local authorities manage their affairs scrupulously and well, and many achieve very high standards, as the Audit Commission's work testifies, it remains the case that a small number of badly managed and poorly performing local authorities tarnish the good reputation of local government. It is in everyone's interests that those authorities turn around their performance and strive to match the standard of the best. That is what the comprehensive performance assessment and follow-up process are designed to help achieve, and that is why we make no apology for including the part 2 provisions in the Bill.
Various mechanisms to make grants are provided for in part 3, including a wide-ranging power to give greater flexibility in making grants to local authorities for any purpose. The new power will allow Government to pay grants without imposing undue conditions—another way in which we are working to reduce red tape and bureaucracy.
Mr. Edward Davey: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what parliamentary scrutiny of those grants there will be?
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. If he favours local government being able to operate without unreasonable central control, he must support measures that allow greater flexibility in grant-making powers. If he wants detailed central control, he
52
will argue for the retention of detailed parliamentary scrutiny of each individual grant, many of which are of very small sums indeed.
This measure will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, because our departmental accounts will continue to be the subject of full parliamentary scrutiny, and it will ensure—[Interruption.] I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman makes light of that. Parliamentary scrutiny of departmental accounts is an important part of the responsibilities of this place. That is the proper way of doing it, rather than minute point-by-point scrutiny of every single grant, however small, to individual local authorities, which is required under the current legislation. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome our approach, which tries to streamline the procedure and cut out unnecessary bureaucracy.
Mr. Andrew Turner: The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) may not have made himself entirely clear to the Minister, or perhaps the Minister did not entirely understand his point, which related not to the scrutiny of each individual grant, but to the scrutiny of the objective criteria under which the grants will he paid. Far too many grants have been paid, for example, in education without any clear objective criteria. It is notable how many of those grants have gone to Birmingham, whereas none has gone to the Isle of Wight.
Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman gave some attention to the details of grants to local authorities, he would be aware of the extraordinary number of very small grants that go, for example, on the beacon council scheme, to which we shall refer later. The average grant is some £40,000. There are well over 100 authorities seeking beacon status next year. Not all will succeed, of course, but to require individual grant approvals in such minute detail is clearly not a sensible way to operate. Obviously, there are broad criteria. When the criteria for beacon council grants are determined, they will specify exactly the sort of broad features in which he is interested. It is right that such issues should be scrutinised, but that does not include the minute detail of individual grant payments.
Sir Paul Beresford: The Minister will be aware of the Select Committee's concern about the subjectivity in the way in which the general grant was given. Does he agree that local authorities and anyone who is faintly suspicious will see that the new measure is an extension of subjectivity or, in other words, allocation by ministerial will?
Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman, who was a Local Government Minister in a former Administration, had read the Local Government Association brief, he would know that it warmly welcomes the provision and believes that it is an appropriate deregulatory measure that allows greater flexibility. Indeed, it states:
"The LGA welcomes the proposal to simplify and extend the statutory basis of grant payments to local authorities. This is particularly welcome in cases where the new power will provide for greater flexibility for councils in the use of the grants."
I attach rather more attention to the LGA's view than to his.

53
Part 4 provides for business improvement districts, which will allow local authorities and businesses to work together to put in place appropriate projects to improve their area. Such projects could deal with a wide variety of issues, including improvements to the quality, safety and accessibility of local shopping centres, enhancements to commercial and business centres and other similar desirable aims. There are already good examples of councils and businesses working together voluntarily to deliver benefits for their areas. That will provide a strong basis for the new bid schemes to develop once the legislation is introduced.
Part 5 contains various measures that will make changes to the non-domestic rating system. For example, small business rate relief will benefit small firms occupying single premises with a rateable value of less than £8,000. That will benefit a significant number of ratepayers. There are almost 1 million properties with rateable values of less than £8,000, and businesses qualifying for the relief will benefit, as their overheads will, in effect, be cut.
Part 6 will update council tax.
Mr. Bill O'Brien: On council tax, my right hon. Friend made a statement early in December on the new formula for local authority funding. The proposals are out for consultation and I am sure that he is receiving a substantial number of representations from members of SIGOMA—the special interest group of municipal authorities—and other authorities about the impact of gearing, which will affect the council tax level. As the Bill will be considered in Committee after the date on which the consultation is due to finish, will he address the problems that some authorities are facing in relation to gearing? There is a need to ensure fairness in council taxes under the new formula, so that no local authority faces excessive council tax problems.
Mr. Raynsford: We intend shortly to announce the start of the balance of funding review, which will consider in more detail the wider issues relating to the way in which local authority services are financed. That is the appropriate context in which to consider the issue that my hon. Friend raises. As he referred to the local government finance settlement, however, I should like to point out that we have received a number of representations, including a considerable number from hon. Members and indeed local authorities. Clearly, we are engaged in the process of consultation, so I do not want to say anything more at the moment. I believe that the settlement was a good one. It allowed above-inflation increases to every local authority in the country for the first time, and I believe that that helps local authorities to budget for the coming year.
Part 6 will allow for a 10-year cycle of revaluation and variation in the number of bands. It will help to achieve a fairer way of raising council tax in future years. Contrary to what has been said in some press coverage, revaluation will not lead to increases in the council tax yield. Revaluation is simply the process of looking again at the relative values and distribution between different
54
areas. Local authorities will also have greater freedom on the council tax discounts and exemptions that they grant.
Mr. Pickles: The Government already have powers to vary the bands. Why is a new band preferable to variation of bands?
Mr. Raynsford: Although, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, there is a power to vary bands, he will be aware that no power exists to increase the number of bands. It might well be felt appropriate to increase the number of bands from eight to 10 or more, but that is simply an option. At the moment, the only power available in the legislation is to vary the bands' existing widths within the existing number. We have received representations from certain parts of the north, for example, to the effect that band A covers a disproportionately large number of properties. Some 80 per cent. or more of properties in that area are entirely within band A. The occupiers of a number of very low value properties in areas with very low values feel that band A is perhaps unfair to them because it covers a very wide range, including properties that may be twice the value of their own. We have not taken decisions on these issues, but they need to be looked at, and given that we have received these sensible and logical representations, it is right that we make provision—if necessary, and if it is felt appropriate—to increase the number of bands.
Mrs. Browning: Does the Minister therefore have in mind park homes, which inevitably fall into band A, even though their owners often feel that that band is unfair so far as they are concerned?
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Lady raises a perfectly fair point. I myself have received representations from the owners of park homes whose properties fall into this category, and who feel that band A is very broad. In some cases, their homes fall rather low in the overall position in band A, and a separate band might be helpful to them. This is precisely why we are giving ourselves the power, if we decide that it is appropriate to do so, to create additional bands. However, we are not committed to doing that at this stage, because a lot will depend on the revaluation process, which, as I have said, will begin in 2005.
Sir Paul Beresford: On a constructive note, when the banding system was set up in 1991, the variation between property values in the north and in the south, for example, was not as great as it is now. Is the Minister considering establishing a regional mean variation, so that variations in the same banding system can accommodate variations in property values throughout the country?
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that some representations have been made in favour of such an option, but as I have already made clear, we have taken no decisions and have no predisposition one way or the other on this issue. We will begin the process of revaluation with a genuinely open mind, and we will be guided by the evidence. Between now and 2005, when revaluation begins, a lot could happen in terms of

55
relative values. For example, at the moment a great deal of concern exists in the south of England because in the past 11 years values there have increased by a greater proportion than in the north. However, current figures tell us that the fastest growing region in terms of house prices is Yorkshire and Humberside, and if that trend were to continue for a couple of years, we could well see a very different pattern from the one that currently prevails. For all those reasons, it would not be wise for us to jump to conclusions at this stage about what is the right way to handle this issue, as and when the revaluation begins. However, we have made provision, and the powers exist to deal with this issue in a sensitive way.
Through part 7, we are aiming to complete the transition to resource accounting in the housing revenue account, thereby making it a pure landlord account. Local housing strategies will be put on a statutory basis, and authorities will have the flexibility to rationalise their housing plans. Perceived barriers to rent restructuring will be removed. Finally, part 8 contains the non-finance provisions in the Bill, which also give substantial freedoms to local authorities. For example, all best value authorities will be allowed to charge for discretionary services. Better performing councils will also be empowered to trade across a range of services that they provide.
Mr. Adrian Sanders: I do not know whether the Minister has skipped through part 6, but on second homes and councils' ability to end discounts, how much of such discounts will local authorities be able to use without restriction?
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in the case of second homes, our proposal is to enable local authorities to vary the discount from the current obligatory 50 per cent. downwards to a limit of 10 per cent. There is a purpose for that. We believe that local authorities should retain the proceeds of the reduction in the discount if they choose to do so. The only way in which that can happen is if they know which properties are second homes, and they will have that information only if the owners of second homes have an incentive to record it. That is why we have set the 10 per cent. discount as the absolute minimum, and it exists for that obvious reason. The objective is that local authorities will derive the whole additional revenue that is drawn from the reduction in the discount if they choose to do so. However, it is a local discretion—one more example of the way in which the Government are devolving power and enabling local authorities to take decisions.
Dr. John Pugh: I am sure that the Minister will conclude by saying that champagne corks should pop because local authorities will have much more power, but how does he explain why 70 pages of legislation contain 79 references to the Secretary of State's powers—new powers, reserve powers and powers that will not be given back to the local
56
authorities? There is only one instance in the Bill of power being given away without obligation, and that is in connection with the prescription of rateable values.
Mr. Raynsford: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has not read the Bill, which makes it clear that local authorities will have a substantial number of additional freedoms. For example, the borrowing approval requirement will be ended, councils will be allowed to charge for discretionary services, and fair, good and excellent authorities will be allowed to trade. In addition, councils will be allowed to give discretionary council tax discounts, and to reduce or withdraw discounts on second homes and homes that have been empty a long time.
Dr. Pugh rose—
Mr. Raynsford: No, I have given way already to the hon. Gentleman. He may not like what I have to say, but he is going to hear it. The Bill gives a substantial number of freedoms and benefits to local government. Local government welcomes that, as the hon. Gentleman should know. However, the Bill also contains a number of innovations, such as the business improvement district. We do not want to be too prescriptive at this stage, as that would hamper innovation and the exploration of different models. As I explained in detail to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committee—and I think that the hon. Gentleman was present at the time—we have chosen, in the relevant part of the Bill, to operate largely through regulation. The Bill contains frequent references to regulations made by the Secretary of State, because that allows us to give effect to policies that emerge as the business improvement district scheme unfolds. If we specified in the Bill how the scheme should operate, it would be more difficult to alter, as the hon. Gentleman knows. He should not jump to the conclusion that the references to the Secretary of State's powers mean that it is a centralising Bill. The official Opposition have made exactly that mistake. The Bill is not a centralising measure, but a deregulatory one. It gives substantial additional benefits and freedoms to local government, and local government welcomes it.
Mr. Bercow: Leaving aside the question of the precise balance between centralisation and decentralisation in the Bill, will the Minister say whether, on the whole, the bulk of the Bill's powers to make regulations and orders will be subject to the affirmative procedure of the House, or to its negative counterpart?
Mr. Raynsford: As the hon. Gentleman will discover if he serves on the Standing Committee considering the Bill—and I should be very pleased if he does—the Bill offers a judicious mix in that regard. The affirmative powers will be used in respect of a substantial number of measures, and the negative procedures will be used in other cases.
Dr. Brian Iddon: Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm whether the housing direct labour organisation in my area will be able to trade with

57
former tenants who have exercised the right to buy? Will the HDLO be able to sell those tenants double-glazing at a reasonable price, for example?
Mr. Raynsford: I know that my hon. Friend takes a great interest in these matters, and I have visited the double-glazing factory in his authority. It manufactures units to a very high standard, but I must say no more in case it could be implied that I am giving a commercial advantage to one operator. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that authorities that achieve a good, excellent or fair rating under the comprehensive performance assessment will be given powers to trade—with the private sector, with individuals who have purchased their homes and with other authorities. That is another of the important deregulatory measures that give local government additional powers, and which are the hallmark of the Bill.
I was referring to part 8 of the Bill, which contains the non-finance provisions and gives to local authorities greater freedoms, such as the trading powers that I have described. However, all local authorities will also have the freedom to hold advisory polls on any matter relating to the services for which they are responsible, and on matters connected to the well being of their areas. Councils will also be allowed to retain the proceeds from litter and dog fouling penalties and spend them on local environmental improvements.
I turn now to the fire service, which is a local government service and fire authorities are included in a number of the reforms that the Bill will institute. In addition, the Government will move an amendment in Committee to remove Whitehall's detailed operational control of fire brigades' establishments—the number of staff, the deployment of appliances and the location of fire stations.
Such an amendment arises from the Government's acceptance of the urgent need to facilitate a move to a new approach to fire cover, identified by the Bain review as the key to change in the fire service. The current detailed control makes modernisation on the ground more difficult. That amendment will repeal, in England and Wales, most of section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said on 16 December, when the Bain report was published, that we would introduce such legislation at the earliest opportunity, and he announced his intention to use the Bill as the vehicle to do so on 19 December.
My right hon. Friend also made it clear that we accepted in principle the Bain recommendations for wider legislation to modernise the fire service, to improve inspection and service delivery and to set up a new central body to drive modernisation. We will give further attention to those matters in a fire White Paper, which we intend to publish in the spring. We will therefore consider the issues raised in that regard by the Bain review during the next few months, and a Bill giving effect to the White Paper proposals will be introduced as soon as the legislative programme allows.
Mr. Pickles: I seek clarification on what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. Can he give us an indication of how much the proposals will affect the local determination of fire services run by local councils?
Mr. Raynsford: The measure is all square with our overall approach—to devolve power—and it specifically
58
builds on the Bain recommendation that modernisation should be based on a risk assessment carried out in each fire authority to determine staffing and the correct location of appliances. Those issues should be determined by the fire authority in consultation with the senior fire officer for the area. In our view, such matters should not be determined by Whitehall. The current position is a relic of a previous centralising regime that goes back to the 1940s, which should be replaced in line with our overall approach.
Mr. Curry rose—
Mr. Robert Syms rose—
Ms Joan Walley rose—
Mr. Raynsford: I will give way to my hon. Friend, and then I shall give way to other hon. Members.
Ms Walley: Will the amendment that my right hon. Friend has just mentioned be consistent with the findings of the earlier working parties that were set up jointly by the Government and fire service employers? The Bain recommendations should be considered, but the amendment should be consistent with the wider work that took place with the fire service.
Mr. Raynsford: That amendment is warmly welcomed by the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association, and I believe that it will be very warmly welcomed by employers. Certainly, the employers' representatives to whom we have spoken have been extremely enthusiastic to hear that we are making such rapid progress on implementing that firm recommendation of the Bain review. It is crucial to ensure that modernisation is carried forward on a proper, risk-assessment basis to ensure that, in every area, those people best able to determine how to respond to the risk of fire do so and that the deployment of appliances and crewing levels are sufficient to meet the needs of that area in the most effective way. That is the objective, and it should be achieved through local assessment.
Mr. Curry: We have already heard that an amendment relating to section 28 will be moved in Committee, and we have now heard that there will be an amendment relating to elements of the Bain report. My understanding is that the Bill is intended to go into Committee on 21 January and to come out on 6 February. That is what the Local Government Association says, and it seems to get much more advance notice of such things than we do. Even though there has been some pre-legislative scrutiny of elements of the Bill, does the Minister seriously think that what is now becoming a parliamentary pantechnicon is capable of being examined in six sittings?
Mr. Raynsford: As the right hon. Gentleman has rightly pointed out, the Bill has been subject to very detailed pre-legislative scrutiny. It was scrutinised by the Select Committee and was the subject of detailed observation by local government. We will certainly try to ensure that it receives the most effective scrutiny in Committee, and a programme motion will determine

59
that—that is not the subject of this debate, but it will no doubt be considered later. I am sure that the Bill will be properly scrutinised in Committee.
Mr. Syms rose—
Mr. Raynsford: I was about to say that we will publish a fire White Paper in the spring, and we will consider the issues raises in this regard by the Bain review over the next few months. The conclusions, which we will set out in the White Paper, can therefore be brought forward, as soon as legislative time allows, in a new piece of legislation.
Mr. Sanders: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Raynsford: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once already, and it is time that we made progress.
This is an ambitious and far-reaching Bill, which extends substantial new freedoms and benefits to local government. It takes a very significant step forward in putting central-local relations on a sounder, more constructive footing. It will help local government to be more responsive to local needs and pressures, and will improve the delivery of local services. It will encourage councils to be innovative in developing new services and partnerships. It will encourage all councils to emulate the achievements of the very best performers, and will he warmly welcomed by all who care about the future of local government. I commend the Bill to the House.
5.36 pm
Mr. Eric Pickles: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Local Government Bill because it is a centralising measure that will have the effect of undermining local democracy by imposing new duties and responsibilities on local authorities; it places in the hands of the Secretary of State too much power to determine the management of individual local authorities; it deprives local authorities of control over housing and capital receipts; and it gives unnecessary powers to the Secretary of State on financial administration, particularly the powers to specify the level of local authorities' reserves and to monitor budgets."
It is pleasure to start the new year by following the Minister, who, as always, is a master of his brief and has a clear idea of where local government should go, even though, occasionally, it pays to go in the opposite direction from what is intended.
Let me start with a quote:
"The Government promised to redress the imbalance between central and local government. This Bill fails to achieve that. It makes some small steps in the right direction but at the same time increases the power of the Secretary of State. Central Government seems to be terrified of trusting local authorities and allowing them their independence."
Those were the opening words of the Select Committee's verdict on the draft Bill. That Bill, unaltered other than by tinkering at the edges, is before the House today. I want to pay tribute to the work of the Select Committee—it has made the Bill easier to understand and has acted as a persuasive advocate for more
60
freedoms for local authorities. It has not pulled its punches in that report or in the report that it published last Friday. I am sure that the House is grateful for its work.
Many high hopes and expectations were raised by the earlier White Paper. I shall make a small confession, which I pray will not get me into too much trouble with my party—I found the White Paper bold in its promises. Its general direction offered promise and a chance to address relationships between central and local government, which was long overdue. I had reservations, of course—who would not with this Government? I was not sure whether they would have the bottle to see it through, and we have seen evidence today that they do not. This poor managerial mish-mash falls well short of the radical overhaul promised. In the words of the Select Committee,
"aspects of the Bill centralise powers unnecessarily".
At least I now have empathy with the plight of Labour Back Benchers. I, too, know what it feels like to be betrayed by new Labour.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) raised some legitimate points. We now know that important matters relating to the future of the fire service are to be considered, which will take a little time—although I suspect that we will support the Government's aims when they table the amendments, if they are in the terms that the Minister has mentioned. We have the prospect of the repeal of section 28 of earlier legislation, which will take some time.
Andrew BennettWill the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Pickles: I will do so in a second.
We have just three weeks to consider the matter. The Minister made a promise about regulations, which I am sure he will fulfil. I hope that those regulations will be available in sufficient time for members of the Committee to be able to table relevant amendments. That will cause problems.
Kali Mountford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Pickles: In a moment.
I therefore hope that that time will be reconsidered. After all, a similar time was allowed for consideration of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. That is a complex measure, but it is nothing compared with this. If we get wrong the provisions for prudential borrowing, pooling, business zones and trading, we will rue the day. Local government deserves reasonable time for scrutiny of those issues.
Andrew Bennett: Earlier, we heard a ringing declaration from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) about section 28. Can we now hear the position of those on the official Opposition's Front Bench?
Mr. Pickles: We will wait to see the amendment that is tabled. We very much regret that the Government have not had sufficient bottle and have twice failed to table their own amendment. Perhaps they will rely on the services of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford), but I am confident that whoever tables the

61
amendment will do their best to seek consensus across the House so that it receives wide support. No doubt, well before that, the Conservative party's Chief Whip will announce the whipping for that particular debate.
Kali Mountford: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The House has had many opportunities to discuss what is known as section 28, but is, in fact, section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986, and the issue should not be used to play ping-pong on the programme motion. Does he agree that it is far too important an issue for that sort of parliamentary game?
Mr. Pickles: I agree with the hon. Lady. The amendment should have been tabled by the Government. In due course, I hope that we will be able to debate this important issue. However, that point underlines the strong and overwhelming need for the Government to provide extra time in Committee to discuss it.
The Bill falls at the first hurdle over which any radical overhaul must jump. If it managed to negotiate this hurdle successfully, everything else would follow naturally. The hurdle is one of simple trust. The Bill plainly shows that the Government do not trust local government. It seeks to provide for prudential borrowing, but the Government retain draconian powers. It seeks to give new financial responsibility, but they will retain the powers over balances. It seeks to give more freedom to housing associations but introduces the pooling of capital receipts. It seeks to recognise the community advocacy of councils, but introduces business improvement districts.
Local government is marginalised in the eyes of the public. It is seen rightly or wrongly—I believe rightly—to be utterly the creature of central Government for pay, for rations and for policy. The recent settlement and the comprehensive performance assessment findings will have confirmed just that and the public's suspicion. What used to be a sea of vibrant vitality, innovation and new ideas is slowly turning into an ocean of bland uniformity. Local government has been diminished to the local delivery of central services. Little wonder that the electorate do not think it worth while to walk a few hundreds yards to put a cross on a piece of paper. We wring our hands and complain of apathy, but it is not apathy. The electorate have rumbled us. When a change to the grant regime can move tens of millions of pounds to and from an authority and when an authority can raise council tax by 6 per cent. to generate just 1 per cent. of income, the public draw their own conclusions as to who is running the show.
The Government think that the problem is voter fatigue. That is why clause 103 will give the Secretary of State the power to lay an order to make the date of the local and Greater London Authority elections in 2004, and therefore enable them to coincide with the European parliamentary elections on 10 June. There is no case for combining the polls. The suggestion that it might be done to avoid voter confusion and fatigue looks, even at the most cursory examination, as a thin veneer to hide partisan advantage.
The right hon. Gentleman's consultation paper does not address the problem of possible voter confusion by having to vote in elections with different voting systems
62
on the same day and with the resulting set of complex ballot papers. Voters in London will face three, and possibly four, different voting systems simultaneously: a supplementary vote for the Mayor; the additional member system for the London Assembly Members; the regional list system for Members of the European Parliament; and the first-past-the-post system if there is a by-election in a borough for either a constituency or the council. Holding both elections on the same day will prevent a proper debate on the separate issues of Europe and local public services and London government. In particular, issues relating to local government will be squeezed out. It is a recipe for confusion and spoilt ballot papers.
The Bill gives powers to the Welsh Assembly to introduce similar measures. The Welsh have dealt with the problem before. I commend the words of the Labour Minister Edwina Hart, who said:
"local government and National Assembly elections should take place on different dates. That would reduce confusion and, hopefully, encourage participation in democratic elections in Wales. It would help to clarify in the public's mind the accountability of local government and the National Assembly for their various responsibilities."—[National Assembly for Wales, Official Record, 25 October 2001.]
To combine the polls on the same day shows a lack of respect for local government and the clearest indication to the public of what the Government really think about the value of councils.
Even in this meagre Bill there are measures that the Conservatives can support and improve. We support the concept of prudential borrowing. The idea that local authorities can manage their financial affairs within their own resources should attract wide support. It is an important step on the long road towards establishing a healthy relationship with local government. It is such a pity that the Government find it necessary to have wide and catch-all reserve powers.
Mr. Tony Travers of the London School of Economics told the Select Committee that the
"same legislation would indeed allow the Government to operate a very different capital control system, one similar to or even more controlled than the present one."
I fully understand the need for the Government to manage the national economy and to control the amount of aggregate borrowing. Conservative Members are in favour of making the scope of the Government's intervention limited and transparent. More sensible people would want that and see it as reasonable. I recognise that the Government have offered a reassurance on that, which I suspect is about to be repeated.
Mr. Raynsford: I am listening carefully. The hon. Gentleman says that he wants the Government's use of the powers to be transparent. I thought that I had made it clear, not just before the Select Committee but in the Bill itself, that there are two reserves powers. The first is in respect of the national economy and will be used only to protect the overall national interest. Is he seriously suggesting that any responsible Government should not have such a power? The second is in respect of individual authorities whose performance is unsatisfactory. He knows that that applies to only a small number of authorities. Is he suggesting that there should be no scope to intervene to stop an authority such as Hackney

63
getting into a position in which it so mismanages its affairs that it creates a large debt that the Government have to bail out?
Mr. Pickles: The Minister may be falling into the same trap as other occupiers of his post. They look at Hackney and think that is local government, but in fact it is an aberration and should be treated as such.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Christopher Leslie): What would the Conservatives do?
Mr. Pickles: There is much merit in the Select Committee's recommendations. In its report of July 2002, it suggested an amendment to clause 4 which set out the procedure by which the Government could act. If Ministers want broad consensus, I hope that a similar, if not identical, amendment will be accepted in Committee. If that happens, we can bridge the gap, square the circle, and be happy about the results.
Sir Paul Beresford: Perhaps I could intervene before my hon. Friend becomes too enthusiastic about the freedom to borrow, which rather concerns me. From his background knowledge, he will recognise that any prudent authority will assist the revenue aspect of the capital that it would borrow. He will also know that the people who hold the purse strings for the local authority revenue are, in effect, the Government. So the new borrowing proposal is actually a sham.
Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend was party to the report; I commend the parts of it saying that without resources these provisions do not achieve much. My hon. Friend is right in his assertion. If that is the point that he is making, I agree with him, and I hope that he has the opportunity to serve on the Committee to ensure that that point is rammed home.
Mr. Bercow: In reflecting on the capital receipts provisions in the Bill, can my hon. Friend tell us what assessment he has made of the effect of the change in the last Parliament on the rules for the use of capital receipts from the sale of council houses on the size of interest repayments on local authority debt?
Mr. Pickles: No, I am afraid that I cannot. I have not the remotest idea, and if that is my hon. Friend's idea of being helpful, I look forward to his next intervention. However, I will look at the matter and write to him. Let me say to him, "Thank you very much."
We oppose the pooling of capital receipts which will penalise well-run authorities, particularly those which are debt free. This matter was raised in interventions on the Minister. For such authorities—there are more than 90—that is the only flexibility they have. The provisions will reward badly run authorities and those which have not acted prudently in the past. The Minister tells us that those which are debt free have, somehow, committed a cardinal sin and that any Member who intervenes will be ticked off. I do not think that this will work—it is double taxation on tenants. Not only have their rents paid off debt, they must now contribute to the national pool.
Mrs. Browning: Does my hon. Friend agree that if there is one thing better than prudential borrowing, it is
64
no borrowing at all? The Government borrow nationally and they want to encourage councils to borrow nationally. Not borrowing and not being in debt means not being in new Labour.
Mr. Pickles: I am very pleased with my hon. Friend's intervention for two reasons—I understood it and I agreed with it.
Sir Paul Beresford: When my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) intervened on the Minister, she was upbraided for picking out debt-free authorities. However, in paragraph 27 of the Bill's explanatory notes, the Government have selected debt-free authorities for special and positive treatment related to capital receipts. Would my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) care to comment on that?
Mr. Pickles: Yes, there was more than a hint that the Government were peeved in their response to the Select Committee. They said that they could see no reason why debt-free authorities should not be included in the pooling arrangements. I can think of many reasons. It may well have the perverse effect of working against the Government's intentions. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors believes that it will provide a disincentive in terms of sales. It asked in the brief prepared for this debate why a local authority should sell its housing stock if it loses the money that it gains as a consequence. It said that the proposal may also encourage local authorities from selling some of their property to fund improvements to the remainder. The measure runs contrary to the Government's stated aim of giving more freedom to local authorities.
A similar pattern emerges over the new financial accounting arrangements bringing local authorities in line with modern accounting practices. A code of practice will be drawn up by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, which will lay down sensible accounting practices. So why is it necessary to lay down the level of local authority balances? Too much statutory regulation runs through the Bill.
We will study the proposals on business improvement districts keenly. The irony that they are contained in a Bill that purports to give additional powers to councils while using the same instruments to pull the rug from under the feet of local authorities will not be lost on the House. There will be a democratic deficit in the management of the districts. They will be, to quote an American critic of the schemes, a "city within a city". Given that they are an American invention, it seems perverse to introduce them at a time when they are falling out of favour in the United States.
In Committee we will be paying particular attention to the rights and responsibilities of landlords and property owners and the protection of small business enterprises from undue burdens. The present threshold over which a successful vote must pass is too low and we will seek to make it more reasonable.
We recognise the need periodically to revalue properties for the purpose of council tax. It must be remembered that the tax was introduced partly as a property tax and partly as a reflection of services provided to a wider community. We support the

65
revaluation being made on a regular and predictable basis. However, we have grave reservations about the introduction of an additional band. We know from reports in the media that some sections of the Labour party regard this as a way of soaking the rich and punishing the wealthy south.
If the newspaper reports are correct, it is the Government's intention to introduce a new band between bands G and H. That would have a severe effect on those on low to middle incomes in London and the south in general and would in particular affect owner-occupiers on low incomes living in high value homes. This phenomenon can be seen in parts of London, Kent and my county of Essex, but it is particularly noticeable in East Sussex. With levels of deprivation similar to those of the north-east, East Sussex property prices are nevertheless in line with the rest of southern England. These families will be badly hit by this latest Labour stealth tax.
There is also a strong case for saying that changes made to taxation by introducing an additional band should be debated on the Floor of the House and not done by regulation. I asked the Minister about the advantages of an additional band over a change in the composition of the bands, but his answer did not satisfy me. The Government would be very unwise to introduce an additional band. I believe that it would cause unforeseen problems and add considerably to the burden on people with low to medium incomes.
The Select Committee expressed concern about the trading arrangements for councils under the Bill. Its report referred to the tradition of ensuring as far as possible that when local authorities trade with the private sector, they do so on fair and equal terms. It expressed worries about the possibility of cross-subsidising the costs of providing traded services with other areas of councils' activities. I acknowledge that in their response the Government indicated that they were sympathetic to this view and that they would address the matter. Our worries go deeper than that, however. We believe that clause 95 could jeopardise the whole process of competitive tendering by enabling authorities to set up an in-house company for services which, under normal circumstances, would be put out to tender. The industry fears that they would have an enormous competitive advantage over private sector bidders.
We fear that the best value tendering process could be distorted unless there are strict safeguards against such companies receiving favourable or preferential treatment. There is a grave risk that the opportunities for private sector companies to operate services for the more successful best value authorities would simply dry up to the detriment of those authorities and the wider community.
If authorities best value companies are able to cream off successful undertakings, there will be a real danger that private sector companies would find it uneconomic to bid for some less profitable services and best value would simply cease to operate in practice. It would be very helpful if the Minister outlined what safeguards the Government intend to adopt to ensure that there is no preferential treatment. In particular, how will the assessment be made that the same performance criteria are being used for private sector companies?
66
All the commentators, the Select Committee and anyone who knows anything about local government agree that it is over-regulated and overburdened. It is a shame that, with the exception of high-performing councils, the Government have not sought to reduce regulation. Talk privately to officials at the Department and they will openly admit that the burden of regulation does little good and is positively damaging, despite its good intentions. Its only purpose now is to act as an incentive to councils for its own removal. It is a sad indictment of the Government that the only carrot for local authorities is the promise to stop hitting them with a stick, but that is indicative of their approach to local authorities, which can be summarised as two bands—trust and understanding. However, the Government neither trust nor understand local authorities, and it shows.
Andrew Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman place in the Library a list of all the regulations that he would abolish?
Mr. Pickles: I am grateful for that opportunity, but I have to say that I am surprised by the aggression of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, as I was largely following the lines taken by his Select Committee. In fact, I was quoting his Select Committee with regard to the amount of overburdening, but perhaps he is retracting.
Andrew Bennett: Let us be quite clear. I want to know which regulations, most of which were introduced by the Conservative Government, the hon. Gentleman is prepared to renounce. A list would be very helpful.
Mr. Pickles: I am not partisan. I am not suggesting that a matter is sacrosanct because it was laid before the House by a Conservative Government, but if the hon. Gentleman is retracting what he said in the comfort of his Select Committee, so be it. I happen to think that he was right when he showed courage in attacking the Government, so I am sorry that he seeks to retreat from that.
The Government know that they should release their grasp, but they seem unable to do so and the Bill is no more than a pause in their march towards centralisation. I commend the amendment to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I remind all Members that Mr. Speaker has placed a 15-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
6.3 pm
Andrew Bennett: I am grateful to be called, Madam Deputy Speaker. First, may I make it clear to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) that we look forward with pleasure to seeing his list in the Library so that we know which regulations covering local government he would repeal? Then, perhaps, we could have some common ground. My disappointment with the legislation is that it does not go far enough or fast enough, although it is easy for him to have a general feeling that there are too many

67
regulations without being prepared to be specific. It would be helpful if we had a list of those that he would repeal.
I want briefly to deal with the question of scrutiny of the legislation. I very much welcomed the Government's publication of a draft Bill in the summer, although it would have been nice if they had given the Select Committee a little more time to scrutinise it. I understand all the difficulties for the Minister, however. In a sense, the difficulties involved not the Select Committee, but the people outside who gave evidence. The strength of a Select Committee report is the quality of the evidence it receives. I make the point to the Government's business managers that if we are to get pre-legislative scrutiny right, we need a little more time for it.
May I also place on record my appreciation of those who advised the Select Committee? I must refer in particular to Rita Hale, Professor Michael Lyons, Anna Capaldi and Amanda McIntyre, whose help was important. I also want to place on record my appreciation of the Clerk, David Harrison, and our special assistant, Claire O'Shaughnessy. They all worked very hard. I also express my appreciation of all members of the Committee, as we had to carry out the scrutiny in a week. A little more time might have made our efforts that bit better.
Mr. Edward Davey: Given that the Select Committee had so little time to scrutinise the draft Bill, does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about the Government allowing the Standing Committee only six sittings to scrutinise the real Bill?
Andrew Bennett: The question is, are we getting scrutiny in the House right? It seems to me that the key to scrutiny in the House is what goes on beforehand. A draft Bill was available in the summer, so almost everyone involved with local government had a chance to study it then, and the Bill itself was published about five weeks ago. People outside have had a good—opportunity to consider the legislation and the fact that the Bill will be considered in Committee for a relatively short time does not mean that there is a problem with the scrutiny.
I have wasted lots of time in Committee filibustering, which does not take the arguments forward. The question is, how effectively is time used in Committee? I believe that a Standing Committee of the House will be able to deal with the Bill very effectively. If I were an Opposition Member, I would not be complaining about the time available in Committee. I would be rather more concerned to ensure that there is adequate time for consideration on Report. The legislation can be adequately scrutinised and a good job has already been done, up to this stage at least.
I am pleased that we had the chance to scrutinise the Bill, but I would like the Government to have even more confidence in local government. I believe that the Minister has that confidence, but the difficulty lies in convincing some of his colleagues in other parts of government that we should provide that extra power. I hope that we can move in that direction.
68
The question of giving greater powers to excellent local authorities lies, unfortunately, in the hands of the Audit Commission. Anyone who considered the scrutiny process and the evidence given by Paul Kirby of the Audit Commission would have been flabbergasted by its quality. We were totally baffled by the end. If that person is supposed to be setting out the league tables, we cannot have much confidence in them.
I am very worried about the local authority league tables. In football, the teams at the top of the league have usually scored more goals than those at the bottom. That is pretty objective, but it would be difficult for a football referee to judge whether one team had played better than another without referring to the goals scored. Some Audit Commission decisions are extremely subjective and some people who come out from the Audit Commission to study local authorities do not have a clue what is going on.
One of my great complaints about Reddish is the fact that so much rubbish is left behind by the cleansing department when it clears the bins, yet that local authority has been commended for its refuse collection service. Instead of relying on the Audit Commission, why do not the Government rely a little more on the local electorate? If they are going to give the local authorities more powers, let the local authority and the local electorate decide whether they will be used, rather than depend on the Audit Commission league tables.
Dr. Pugh: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that a Select Committee recommendation was that it should be possible to appeal against the decision of the Audit Commission, although the Government did not accept that and it is not in the legislation? Will he urge the Standing Committee seriously to consider that matter?
Andrew Bennett: There is a case for an appeal process, but that would just make everything even more bureaucratic. I should prefer to get rid of the whole thing and tell local people to make up their own minds about whether they trust their council with the extra services, rather than telling them that because their council was just above the relegation zone on one bit of the table it would be allowed to have those extra powers.
Mr. Pickles: Has the hon. Gentleman formed an opinion as to the real costs for authorities of the scrutiny and inspection processes in terms of officer time and actual outlay?
Andrew Bennett: I cannot remember the exact figure that the Audit Commission is charging local authorities, but it is pretty appalling. It worries me greatly that officers are being taken away from actually running services to hold discussions with the Audit Commission's representatives. I have great reservations about the amount of inspection, but fortunately the Government are starting to move in the right direction by reducing it. Services need a push to get them going, but once they are rolling they have their own momentum. It worries me that the Audit Commission may not be able to step back but will want to carry on pushing.
Mr. Chris Mole: My hon. Friend will be aware that I had not joined the Select Committee when

69
it was considering those aspects of the Bill, but surely he appreciates that inspection will be reduced for several years in authorities that did well under the comprehensive performance assessment process. Indeed, many local authorities have welcomed the process of self-analysis and assessment and found it useful in undertaking their corporate business.
Andrew Bennett: I understand that many local authorities have benefited from the process. I have been told regularly by people who have helped with the process in an authority other than their own that they found such work useful and learned much from it.
However, I am a little concerned about some of the quirks in the league table. I have been pressed by Tameside metropolitan borough council because Wigan received a much better result, which appeared to turn only on the question of when their respective social services departments were inspected. Wigan has done an outstanding job in the north-west but Tameside is a good authority, too, and my electors would rightly be a little suspicious if Wigan received extra powers and Tameside did not.
Revaluation is important, but the key point for local government is that it should have a form of buoyant income. Whenever there is revaluation, there is an outcry from people and local authorities usually take the flak, even though they are not actually involved in the process.
I was very disappointed that the Opposition were not prepared to support the proposals on bands. They do not understand the problems in places such as Denton and Reddish and the east side of Greater Manchester. When properties are losing value due to the weakness of the housing market and people cannot even sell them for £10,000 or £15,000, yet similar houses only a short distance away go for £30,000, £40,000 or £50,000, there is considerable concern that council tax bands do not reflect economic reality in those areas.
Mr. Pickles: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Andrew Bennett: I will, although I am reluctant to do so because of the time restrictions.
Mr. Pickles: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question that the Minister did not want to answer? What is the advantage of an additional band as opposed to adjusting the existing bands or introducing a regional variation?
Andrew Bennett: The advantage of extra bands is that in areas such as mine they would deal with the fact that band A currently covers a wide range of properties. Although redistribution or lowering of the bands might have some impact, the easiest solution would be to increase their number. We should remember how we got into this mess. Some people were keen to get rid of the rates. Then we got the poll tax and we are reaping that harvest in our current problems. I make a strong plea for splitting band A. There is also a case—although it is not so important in my constituency—for increases at the higher end of the scale.
I very much welcome the proposals for business improvement districts although there are some problems to be sorted out, especially between owners
70
and tenants. In many business improvement areas, the tenant of the property will make the contribution but if, as we hope, the area succeeds, the owner of the property will receive the greatest benefit. We should try to ensure that everyone in a successful business improvement area where property values increase should have made some contribution. We need to do further work on that.
It is also important that some of the business improvement schemes should be for small areas. In my constituency, there are problems due to competition between the town centre and out-of-town shopping areas, but the hardest-hit places are the small shopping parades which used to have the butcher, the baker—although perhaps not the candlestick maker. They included a small range of shops but they have almost all disappeared. Boarded-up shops give the whole neighbourhood a depressed look so I hope that local authorities can undertake improvements in small business areas as well as in town centres.
I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Minister if I pressed him too hard and too early on clause 28. I thought that he was going to tell us that there would be separate legislation, but I welcome his comments. I hope that we can include those suggestions and that the official Opposition will support them instead of dodging them as they did this afternoon. If we can get all-party support we could get the provision out of the way with very little debate. We have, after all, spent a huge amount of time debating it in the House; it will have a big impact outside but it probably does not need so much debate.
I hope that when the Deputy Prime Minister makes his statement on housing in a few weeks time we can look into the powers for local authorities to regulate landlords. I realise that legislation is proposed in the future, but it would be most helpful if we included a clause that allowed local authorities simply to undertake the preparations for registering and regulating landlords who want to benefit from social security payments.
I commend the Government. The Bill may be only a modest step, but we are moving in the right direction and I very much hope that it will quickly reach the statute book.
6.17 pm
Mr. Edward Davey: The House is indebted to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) and his Select Committee. Their report on the draft Bill, which, as we have just been reminded, was compiled in only a week, was hard hitting.
Many of the Committee's criticisms of the draft Bill apply to the current measure. The Committee may have been influential in persuading the Government to change a few things—it is especially good that the proposal for one special single formula grant has been dropped—but many of the Committee's other pertinent criticisms still apply to the Bill; the hon. Gentleman held back a little when mentioning them.
The Liberal Democrats will support the Bill for at least three major reasons. First, we support the new prudential capital regime, albeit with reservations. Secondly, we support the proposals on business improvement districts, which are an important step forward, and I shall spend some time discussing them.

71
Thirdly, the council tax reforms are extremely welcome, as far as they go, and will help many councils and, more important, council tax payers throughout the country. Those significant prizes should not be lost by opposing the Bill. However, we have serious reservations that we shall press hard in Committee and, indeed, in this debate.
The Government are retaining many reserved powers, especially in respect of capping borrowing powers and minimum reserves. Along with many others, I am concerned about the potential for party political meddling. We are particularly concerned about the pooling arrangements, about which many right hon. and hon. Members have already spoken but which I shall consider in some detail. Furthermore, I have counted at least 38 new regulation-making powers in the Bill, many of which are unnecessary.
I agree with one thing that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) said. The public have undoubtedly rumbled the Conservative party. When the hon. Gentleman criticised the Government for centralising powers, many Members shook their heads in disbelief. Given its record in local government, the extent of forgetfulness in the Conservative party makes amnesiacs seem like nostalgics. Conservative Front Benchers have a lot to apologise for, and the current weak state of local government is a direct result of many years of centralising measures by the Conservatives.
We shall argue, both on Second Reading tonight and in Committee, that the Government should have a much greater vision. They should put the Conservative years much further behind them than they seem willing to do. They should abolish the Tory council tax—the real reform that the country needs. In many ways, we also want to abolish the Secretary of State. He has far too many powers over local government, and they should be removed from many areas. We need to rebuild local government, and to show that central Government trust local government. The Bill does not provide for that.
I want to make some detailed comments about the prudential capital regime. The regime it is replacing was quite disgraceful. The credit approval regime, with its basic credit approvals and supplementary credit approvals, was not just a complex regime that undermined local democracy and meant that councils and councillors had to go cap in hand to Whitehall; it was also very inefficient, and prevented sensible investment. Credit approvals could not be carried forward to the following year, which made a mockery of the long-term planning necessary for many capital proposals. It also prevented best value and invest-to-save schemes. Indeed, it also reduced local expertise in local finance departments. I am, therefore, very pleased to see it going.
Liberal Democrats have campaigned for a prudential capital regime for many years. I could read out a long list of Liberal Democrat policy papers in which we have proposed such a regime, but I can see that that would be just too popular tonight. I will simply refer to the Liberal
72
Democrat LGA group's submission in 1998 to the Government's Green Paper, "Modernising Local Government Finance" on capital finance. The group said:
"We believe that capital controls should be removed, but that guidelines are needed to control the total level of debt within each authority."
That is a policy that we continue to support.
The problem is that the Government's implementation of that very sensible idea does not go far enough. Reserve powers, especially under clause 4(1), contain the potential for the creation of a universal capping regime for borrowing. The Minister said, in response to various interventions, that that was not his intention and that the reserve powers to limit the borrowing of all local authorities, for "national economic reasons", or of individual local authorities would be used very sparingly. I suggest that there is no need for such powers. The prudential regime, which could be worked through with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and the Local Government Association, would be sufficient. Even if the Government were still worried about national economic conditions, those issues could be dealt with in far less threatening ways than those proposed in clause 4. For example, I am concerned that the provisions in clause 4 for retaining borrowing capping powers do not spell out what the "national economic reasons" are. Perhaps the Government intend to do that in the subsequent regulations. It is important that the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister should not suddenly say, "Right, we have decided to use these powers and stop the borrowing." That power is excessive, and needs to go.
Local authorities could take other routes. If an authority wanted to exceed the guidelines for prudential borrowing set by CIPFA, a trip mechanism could be put in place. For example, there could be a local referendum allowing local people to decide what level of borrowing would he appropriate, if it were to exceed CIPFA's recommendation. This is a real weakness in the Government's implementation of a prudential capital regime. As the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) said, there are great limitations to the new freedoms, particularly in respect of the revenue that would be required to service the debt that would spring from the Government's failure to reform the tax regime and the taxation powers for local government. This problem also applies to the failure to reform the housing subsidy scheme, because borrowing for investment in housing is linked to the rent subsidy scheme that the Government have for housing. That is not being reformed, so, again, there will not be the revenue to support increased debt for investment in housing. The effect of pooling will also restrict the ability of local councils to borrow within the new framework. These are serious weaknesses.
When might reserved powers be used? Would they be used halfway into a project in which a local council had decided to invest? That might deter the investment in the first place. The pooling proposals will bring great instability to the setting of prudential borrowing limits The Secretary of State's regulations on pooling, which we have not yet seen, could easily be changed in future. A council could therefore find that it had to contribute more to the pool than it had expected, thus reducing its

73
prudential limit and its ability to borrow. Of course, the reverse could also be the case. The instability built into the new capital regime will make the regime far less effective. So, while I am happy to give two cheers for the new prudential capital regime, I am afraid that the remaining central powers make it less effective than it could otherwise be.
The remaining centralisations that are retained in the Bill concern me particularly. Clause 26, for example, will allow the Secretary of State to set minimum reserves for each local authority. That is a new power—a new centralisation—and it is unnecessary. The Minister will know that section 114 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 gives chief finance officers powers to take action if they see overspending during the year. I cannot see what the extra powers in clause 26 add to that system.
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the existing CIPFA guidelines on finance officers' powers have been in place since 1995. Despite that, we have seen clear evidence recently that a number of authorities have got into serious financial difficulties—Hackney, Walsall and North Tyneside, for example. All those cases seem to be associated with a failure to maintain adequate reserves. The Government had to provide some £25 million of additional finance to cover the position that Hackney had got itself into. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that we should simply turn a blind eye and do nothing at all? The reserve powers are designed to cope with circumstances such as those—which, as I stressed in my speech, are exceptional, but they happen—and it is necessary that there should be a safeguard against those eventualities.
Mr. Davey: I am afraid that the Minister does not make his case. There are other ways of dealing with this—for example, by improving the powers that currently exist. I mentioned section 114 of the Local Government Finance Act. That power could be developed to ensure that the Minister would not be able to put his mark on every budget and budget-making process up and down the land.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish spoke of the centralisation in respect of the comprehensive performance assessment under clause 100. The fact that the CPA has been linked to some of these new freedoms gives the lie to the idea that this is really a devolution measure. The CPA is a centralising measure, whereby the Government set the regime and can subsequently change it. This is a flawed concept. The idea of earned autonomy—which can, in fact, be taken away—is not really what is meant by real freedoms and real flexibility. It creates instability and it is extremely bureaucratic.
I said that the Bill would give the Government 38 new regulatory-making powers. I wonder how many regulations will be made under the 38 new powers. The Government claimed that the draft Bill was a deregulatory measure, which was bizarre. The Local Government Association and individual councillors cannot understand how the Government can use such rhetoric and then introduce the Bill that is before us. The situation is particularly disappointing given that we would expect a draft Bill to reduce the need for regulatory powers in the first place and to ensure that we get the legislation right and therefore do not need to
74
return to it and do not give extra powers to the Secretary of State to have another think. Unfortunately, that has not proved to be the case.
Mr. Mark Field: Given the hon. Gentleman's catalogue of concerns, why will he and his party support the Bill this evening?
Mr. Davey: I said at the outset that we are in favour of the prudential capital regime, of business improvement districts and of some of the council tax reforms. Those are the main reasons why we shall support the Bill. However, the hon. Gentleman will be surprised to hear me make a criticism.
Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman has said that he would abolish council tax. Surely the small reforms that are being proposed would not go far enough. I am intrigued to know on what basis he feels that his party can support the Bill.
Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman should learn to be grateful for small mercies. We waited many years for the Conservatives to produce a fair system of local government finance: they failed, even at the second attempt. We shall not take too many lessons from the Conservatives.
The proposal to pool the proceeds of asset sales is nothing less than a stealth tax. It legalises the theft of council tax payers' money by taking it from areas that it was not raised for or not meant for. It is one of the worst examples of a stealth tax. Furthermore, there will be huge distortions and disincentives. Only Labour could produce a system that will discourage debt reduction. Surely we want to encourage debt reduction, but the Government are building into the system a disincentive for doing so. Debt-free administrations will be penalised. Many of us in this place are concerned that the proposal will discourage debt-free authorities from sensibly managing their capital portfolio. They will be discouraged from cashing in some assets to use the money elsewhere. It cannot be right that the Government should create such a barrier. I believe that the measure will prove to have a counter effect to that which the Government intend. It is a recipe for lose, lose.
Authorities with assets will not sell them. There will not be any money for authorities that might otherwise have benefited from the pool. The pool will not be very large and there will be inertia in the management of local government capital stock. It is an ill thought through measure and it should be dropped.
Expert comment on the proposal is increasingly insulting and the Select Committee was vehement in its opposition to it. The evidence that it heard from bodies such as CIPFA entirely undermined the Government's case for pooling. The London Government Association has consulted councils throughout the country. Even some of the councils that will benefit from the measure oppose the proposal. They recognise that it would undermine many other local authorities. The majority of local authorities are against the measure. The Government's analysis of the consultation shows that 134 respondents were against the pooling proposals. I challenge the Minister, when he replies to the debate, to

75
give the House a list of the respondents who are in favour of the arrangements. I think that there will be very few, if any.
Mr. McWalter: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the matter is of grave concern and that it stands as a threat to authorities that have resources, which they would like to spend for the benefit of the communities they are elected to serve? Authorities are being stopped from spending such resources because they know that if they do so they will face considerable debt. The proposal is freezing programmes that might otherwise be implemented to improve the condition of life in many areas.
Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. What will a finance director and a council do? They will say, "Maybe in a few years the Government will come to their senses and get rid of the scheme. Perhaps they will get rid of pooling. We would be mad to sell assets now and to lose all the proceeds elsewhere." The asset portfolios of many local authorities will be put in aspic.
Mr. McWalter: The hon. Gentleman has not quite got the point. In addition, authorities will be held to have the capital asset in stock, as it were, even if they have acquired something with it. They then face a double whammy: they will not be able to hold on to the asset because they will be forced to account for the resource even if they have acquired something with it.
Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman will note that the Minister is shaking his head. Perhaps he will explain why that is not the case in due course.
Another aspect of the Government's proposals is that when a council makes a sale and the proceeds go into the pool it will not even earn interest. As I have said, it is an ill thought through proposal. If the Government persist with it, I suggest that in a few years' time we shall see the repeal of a rather silly measure.
I move on to a slightly less esoteric issue—council tax. I have made it clear that Liberal Democrats want to abolish it because it is such an unfair tax. It is the tax that I receive most letters about, and I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members have had the same experience. I receive letters especially from low-income pensioners, who cannot understand why their council tax is increasing year on year above inflation, irrespective of the party in control of the local authority. The entire local government finance system is involved because it is such a non-buoyant tax. It hits those on fixed incomes especially badly. It is time that we got rid of the tax, and there are many other reasons for doing so.
Council tax is quite costly: there must be a system to administer and collect it in every town hall throughout the country. When the Bill is implemented, it will be necessary to meet the costs of revaluation. It is not a particularly efficient tax. The failures—the unfairnesses and the inefficiencies—are becoming worse as we see a shift from central taxation to local taxation. The Government are asking the council tax payer to shoulder even more of the burden. It is time that the Government crossed the rubicon and said, "This was an
76
unfair tax that was introduced by the Conservatives." The Government do not have to live with that inheritance. They can take a bold decision and abolish council tax.
Mr. Andrew Turner: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the shift of the tax burden from central Government to local government. Is the Liberal Democrat party in favour of raising more money locally, or against it?
Mr. Davey: We are in favour of raising money more locally if the tax base is a fair one and if—this is another important criterion, which I mention before the hon. Gentleman puts out a leaflet—national income tax is cut as we raise local income tax. The net tax burden may not increase under our proposals for local income tax.
I should be fair to the Government. The proposals for reform of council tax would improve the tax, albeit at the margins. The proposal for more bands must be right. We have heard some sensible and articulate reasons for introducing more bands at both ends of the scale. Revaluation is inevitable, and I think that the way the Government have gone about that is extremely sensible. Abolition of council tax benefits subsidy limitation schemes is welcome in the area that I represent. The reduction of discounts on second homes is also welcome. We shall disagree about whether the extra 10 per cent. or the minimum 10 per cent. is needed. I am still not clear from the Minister's arguments whether it is necessary to keep that percentage. I think that it should be got rid of entirely and that the local authority should be allowed to keep the proceeds.
Similarly, the Government say that they intend to abolish the council tax discount for empty homes, so why will not local authorities be allowed to keep 100 per cent. of the proceeds? That seems rather odd, and it goes against the Minister's argument for simply reducing the discount on second homes. There are a number of specific wrinkles in the council tax proposals that we want to iron out in Committee, but their general thrust is welcome.
Business improvement districts are a very welcome innovation, and they have enthusiastic support among at least some Members of the House, although the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar did not seem too enthusiastic. In a speech a few years ago, my noble Friend Lord Ashdown was one of the first British politicians to look to the United States' experience of BIDs and to suggest that we should introduce them here. When one listens to businesses' views about the proposal, whether the CBI or the chambers of commerce express them, one is impressed by the level of support. The benefits are wide, and we welcome the fact that there will be earmarked funds that businesses, working with the local authority and the community, can use to improve the area for the collective good. That will help to regenerate rundown areas, and to spruce up and revitalise even successful ones.
Mr. Patrick Hall: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Conservative spokesman's contention that a business improvement district would represent a city within the city wholly misses the point? If such a scheme

77
were to go ahead, there would have to be a strong local partnership, and it is inconceivable that the local authority would not be part of that.
Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. BIDs would provide the dynamic for engaging the business community with the local council to produce even stronger partnerships working for their area.
Of course, there are caveats. The additionality point is important: we want to make sure that extra money produces additional funding for additional services. I share the concern of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish about whether property owners and landlords will have to pay the extra rate. Will they get the vote before the BID is set up? The Government need to clarify that. The Government need to ensure that they are fair in their treatment of different businesses in the community, and I hope that their guidelines will ensure that that happens.
I am proud that Kingston, the area that I represent, is to be a pilot for the whole of London. We are grateful for the London development agency's funding for us to develop our bid. Kingston is already a successful town.
Mr. Pickles: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davey: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is going to talk about the benefits and excellent progress in Kingston, so I will give way.
Mr. Pickles: Indeed, I once parked there.
The hon. Gentleman is very enthusiastic about business zones. Would he care to comment on research evidence on such zones between 1980 and 1990, which shows that they were no different from other areas in terms of progress and economic benefit, and in some cases the conditions in business zones were inferior to those without the zone?
Mr. Davey: One always has to be careful about interpreting such research. It may be that areas with a BID would have declined significantly without it. Without having read the research, I shall not take the hon. Gentleman's word for it. I would be grateful if he sent it to me, and I promise that I will look at it.
I was talking about the success of Kingston upon Thames. We have 18 million visitors a year, and in the south-east the town is second only to the west end as a favoured retail venue. We are taking that success further with the new Rotunda development, the Charter Quay development and the new theatre, which is to open in spring 2004. However, it would be sensible for Kingston to have a BID. We cannot be complacent and there are negative aspects to our town centre. It is dirty, and we suffer from graffiti, litter and chewing gum. Signage in the town needs to be better maintained.
Mr. Pickles: Chewing gum?
Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman worries about my point on chewing gum. If he takes a walk down Clarence street in Kingston, he will see that chewing gum litters the town and needs to be cleared up.
Mr. Pickles rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Although it may be interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman's comments, it would be appropriate for hon. Members to come to the subject of the debate.
Mr. Davey: I certainly intend to do that.
Mr. Pickles: The hon. Gentleman really should look at the evidence for business zones, and perhaps speak to Lord Ashdown, because the zones are about much more than picking up chewing gum. They are far more fundamental to the economy than chewing gum.
Mr. Davey: The great benefit of these schemes is that businesses, working with their local community and local authority, can decide what is right for them. In Kingston we have the problem that our town centre is dirty, and it needs to be cleaned up. These proposals are exciting for Kingston and other towns, and they will improve partnership, reduce problems and lead to greater regeneration.
There are many other issues in the Bill on which we could comment tonight: the reforms to the housing revenue account, which are welcome; the proposals for the housing strategy; the reform of non-domestic rates, and the small business rate relief, which has much to recommend it. On the latter proposal, I simply ask whether it should be revenue neutral or whether the Exchequer should add more money. Should there be more local flexibility in that scheme? An allowance system might be a better, fairer and more efficient way to make sure that small businesses get more relief from non-domestic rates. There are welcome proposals for charging and trading regimes, although again the Government seem to have taken a narrow approach. We will consider all those matters in Committee.
Although the Bill is extremely welcome, it does not merit Ministers' rhetoric. When the Bill was first published, the Deputy Prime Minister talked about a historic change in the relationship between central and local government. I am afraid that this is rather a timid Bill that will not go down in history as making a major change to that relationship. The smile on the face of the Minister for Local Government and the Regions suggests that he, too, thinks that. However, the Bill contains welcome measures. We particularly welcome the prudential capital regime, and we hope that that at least will improve local government throughout the country.
6.47 pm
Mr. John Battle: I want to offer some words of welcome to the Bill. It introduces significant new features for local councils and it makes a good move towards restoring confidence in the capacities of local government genuinely to serve local communities.
It was my privilege to serve in local government before I served in the House, and I emphasise the word "privilege". That was a great experience, and years later, I still feel that we must be careful not to turn local government into an arcane debate for archival accountancy types which fails to connect with local people's needs and interests. The Bill is part of the process of restoring the faith of people in local government and in the local political process.
In the 20th century, the great environmentalist Schumacher urged us to think global and act local. Our world is more complex now. It is increasingly interconnected, interdependent and vulnerable, and it is a world of increasing personal mobility in which we constantly have to rebuild local communities of diverse groups, ages and backgrounds. Perhaps we need to

79
think and act globally and locally at the same time, realising that the two are inextricably connected. In other words, I suggest that, in the 21st century, the local is as significant as the global.
I passionately believe that restoring faith in the capacities of representative, democratic politics can come only from building from the base upwards. We must affirm and support efforts at the local level, and we must sustain active, progressive councils as the means of democratic participation and management of resources for the common good.
I want to raise four themes in the Bill: much-needed capacity building; match funding; the insensitive analysis of local needs to which the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) referred; and, to use his words, the league-table problem that can distort that analysis. The proposed new capital finance system, the financial management duties on the local authorities and the new powers to issue grant assistance are welcome but are only part of the process. As was said earlier, capital spending has a revenue impact. In practice, the Government have increased resources from the centre to localities, and have introduced myriad welcome initiatives, including the single regeneration budget, neighbourhood renewal funds, resources for anti-crime measures, and sure start projects to name but a few. All those initiatives from the centre address local issues, social exclusion and the need for local service provision. However, I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Minister that we need to look seriously at how top-down initiatives and resources can lock into local needs and engage local people. There is not a great yawning gap in resources but there is a lack of capacity in the local neighbourhood or at street level. There is no reaching up to the downward stream of initiatives—they are not rooted in the locality or bedded in for the long term.
We cannot assume that that amorphous, abstract and pliable noun "the community" exists at the local level. Communities are not innate organisations of people who have been thrown together by circumstance—they need to be patiently built and supported. In the past, we have paid far too little attention to the basic need to build communities, particularly in inner-city neighbourhoods such as that in which I live in inner-city Leeds.
I recall a letter from a constituent some years ago. He had moved into rented accommodation in a local terrace, and said that I had been his MP for about two years. In all that time, he had never been introduced to his next-door neighbour—what was I as his MP going to do about it? At the time, the Tories were in government, so I succumbed to the temptation to remind him that every single year under the Tories, local government budgets were reduced—they were cut again and again. As a result, the local Labour council could not afford to pay "neighbourhood introducers" to help him to get to know his neighbours.
On reflection, local capacity building is what is needed—people working to connect people and build basic community organisations that are fully representative and supported and that can engage with top-down initiatives and resources. We need massive,
80
sensible and proper investment in local capacity building to facilitate the gearing of top-down and bottom-up approaches. We cannot have joined-up government at any level if we do not facilitate the joining together of local people. Capacity building needs to be built into the Bill's budgetary approach.
Mr. Andrew Turner: I hope that I do the hon. Gentleman no disservice if I say that I recognised a note of irony in the letter from which he quoted. However, I am not sure where the irony began or ended. Will he tell the House whether he believes that capacity building, which is a terrific objective, is the same as community building, and whether the great problem with communities is the fact that it is easy to destroy them but difficult to build them?
Mr. Battle: I basically agree, but assumptions are made about communities that already exist. I am suggesting that we must start by addressing supportive capacity within communities.
In recent years, a key concept in encouraging engagement and local rethinking about funding has been match funding: central Government grant matched by a similar amount from elsewhere—sometimes, it is assumed, the private sector. In inner-city neighbourhoods, where there is not much private sector investment to start with, the matching has come from other sources, and the result has been a virtual matching from local government or other public resources. They are forced to meet half the costs, with little say in the delivery, and usually without any extra resources to fund the matching. Increasingly, matching means that central and local government resources are put together, but with a mass of bureaucratic form-filling in between. The results are insecure projects, a waste of time and inefficiency.
Can we look again at the purpose and reality of matching, and have enough confidence in local government to agree that, if it has to provide the resources to keep projects going, it ought to play a proper role, rather than being a late-in-the-day funder of last resort? The Youth Justice Board, and the schemes for youth offending teams and youth inclusion programmes are classic examples. The need for real grants, rather than phoney matching with leftover allocations of single regeneration budget grant, could be sorted out in the Bill.
Turning to insensitive analysis, what do we mean by a best-value authority and prudent financial systems? Again, top-down approaches often ignore detailed local analyses of need. Leeds, my city, is acknowledged as thriving and is undergoing renewal, not least as a result of the prudent and visionary management of the Labour council during the hard times of the 1980s and early 1990s. Yet the indices of need for the city as a whole—a city of 750,000 people—can disguise the needs of the 230,000 people who live in the inner city, 160,000 of whom live in 10 of the poorest wards in Britain. Life between the prosperous central business area and the thriving suburbs beyond the ring road can be disguised by averages. Average and mean figures, and the greatly misunderstood difference between them, completely disguise deep pockets of poverty, ill health, social isolation, lack of training and work opportunities, and the prospects of inner-city neighbourhoods.

81
In inner-city areas, average figures from cake-slice shaped wards radiating from the city centre, such as Kirkstall, Armley, Wortley and Bramley in my constituency, bury the deep needs of the poorest who live near inner-city prosperity. Statistics from the outer areas disguise the problems of the inner city, smoothing over need in a general trickle-down theory. The theory that the rising tide of economics will lift all boats does not work—in particular, it does not lift holed boats. Recently, our local paper, the Yorkshire Evening Post, has featured vignettes of divided Leeds—inner-city neighbourhoods are missing out on initiatives in the shadow of a thriving retail and business centre.
Where I live in the inner city, a ward may not qualify for a single regeneration budget grant because of the weighting of the better-off who live out near the ring road. Instead of the usual ward indices, we need subtler, more detailed analysis and a more localised response to tackle the complex clusters of inner-city poverty and need. If we are to try to root out urban poverty and close the widening gap between the better-off and the poor, we should accept that there is a dangerously divisive scar in inner-city neighbourhoods.
On the analysis of league tables, I could argue that my city of Leeds is penalised for doing rather well. In recent years, because of prudential financial management of precisely the kind advocated in the Bill, the redistribution of grant formula—the gearing that was referred to earlier—has resulted in Leeds receiving an increase of 5.7 per cent where other metropolitan districts received 7.3 per cent.
That was a welcome increase, unlike our experience under the Tories. However, because council taxes were not pumped up to force its citizens to compensate for deep Tory cuts, the council is caught in a double bind: a great unacceptable council tax hike, or being unable to spend as much as the Government are encouraging it to spend. In those circumstances, how can the city break out of the box and start using resources to tackle those deep pockets of poverty that are disguised by the average and need extra support and investment?
We are not calling for a recasting of a complex formula that has been worked out well by the Government but simply suggesting a more sensitive local analysis and an acknowledgment of what is really needed. In practical terms, I suggest a more imaginative approach. For example, use of the enhanced neighbourhood renewal funds may be a means of addressing local poverty pockets and engaging people at the local level. It might also provide opportunities for exploring new capital investment in genuine basic community capacity building, and for exploring the possibilities of local neighbourhood provision of services, such as care of the elderly, cleaning and meals services, care of the sick, child care and family support. Such services could all be provided locally, at the street level, employing local people instead of resources bought halfway across the city.
We could explore investment in the local environment, recycling potential, waste and energy management, investment in the local provision of basic needs, shopping and finances, and better use of derelict land and property, using the new business improvement district idea as an innovative template for getting down to the micro level and promoting long-term change.
82
At the urban summit in Birmingham on 31 October last year, the Deputy Prime Minister said:
"This is an exciting time, with a big agenda and a big challenge for us all. That challenge is about developing sustainable communities—a new type of urban development. But it's also about a vision, about doing things differently, with imagination, and lifting our horizons."
I welcome the Bill. It could be a catalyst for such a step change in thinking, and contribute to developing a local neighbourhood perspective to the rebuilding of much-needed basic supportive communities, building sustainable local economies, and perhaps equally important, restoring confidence in local government and in local representative democracy. The Bill should kick-start that process.
7.2 pm
Sir George Young: The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) made a thoughtful speech about the needs and challenges of local communities on the one hand, and the resources of Government on the other—a subject on which he has strong and clear views. I do not share his optimism that the Bill will unlock the new vision that he described, but he delivered his speech with great conviction. I hope that he will excuse me if I do not follow him down that path.
Another new year, another Local Government Bill. I find this a Bill without any theme. Bits of it are deregulatory and welcome; bits of it are highly regulatory and less welcome. Bits of it are decentralising, but most of it is centralising. Even the general secretary of the Labour party made a speech last month criticising the amount of ring-fencing and the use of specific grants, and said that the Government have not done what they could to reverse the trend.
Not only does the Bill suffer from having no theme, but in parts it is very boring indeed. Many of the clauses contain unexciting provisions that the Department has been trying to get on to the statute book for some time—I believe that I recognise one or two from my days there a decade ago. Ministers should not claim too much for the Bill. I fear that it will not re-ignite interest in local government, as the hon. Member for Leeds, West suggested. It will not bring forward a fresh generation of local councillors or increase the turnout in May's elections, and our debate this evening may not engage the attention of the nation's press. However, there are some important points that need to be made.
Before turning to the detailed provisions, I shall pick up something that the Minister said right at the beginning. It is worth making the point that he has a more benign environment, where local authorities are not challenging the elected Government of the day. In the 1980s, a few local authorities decided to take on the Government. Commissioners were put into Norwich, which refused to implement the right to buy. Councillors were threatened with suspension for not fixing a legal budget. The Government contemplated suspending Lambeth and Liverpool as they faced financial meltdown. Indeed, some of the provisions in the Bill dealing with the evasion of capital controls date back to those days of confrontation—confrontation certainly not sought by the Government of the day. The present Government are fortunate that local authorities are more compliant now and more willing to work with the elected Government than some of the more bloody-

83
minded and extreme authorities that were around in the 1980s, so the background for a Local Government Bill is more favourable.
I welcome in general terms the thinking behind clauses 1 to 11 relating to capital finance. The clause in the original draft Bill that would have allowed the Secretary of State to require non-housing capital receipts to be paid to the government has been withdrawn. That is appreciated. The major change brought about by this part of the Bill is the duty in clause 3 imposed on a local authority to determine how much money it can afford to borrow. That is a welcome change, providing more scope to incur short-term borrowing costs on investment in projects that will be self-financing in the medium term, either by saving running costs or by enabling the generation of capital receipts.
I wonder whether clause 4, which nationalises, as it were, local authority debt, is really necessary. Surely the Government do not anticipate a return to boom and bust. I thought that we had so many golden rules, so many self-correcting mechanisms, and so many independent monetary regulators that an economic crisis was unthinkable. It is not quite clear how the country's economic interests would be challenged by clause 3. Is local government to be singled out for special treatment if and when the crisis comes? Will the Government's own capital programme be subject to the same sort of restrictions as those envisaged for local government?
Ministers may have overestimated the impact of clause 3 on the freedom to manoeuvre of many local authorities. Given all the pressures on budgets and the necessity of increasing the council tax way beyond the rate of inflation to get the investment in social services and education that the Government want, I do not think that local authorities will conclude that they can use the freedom under clause 3 to afford additional costs for servicing borrowing that is not backed by Government grant. Certainly in Hampshire, where we got the minimum cash uplift in grant for next year, and where a big increase in council tax is inevitable, there is no scope to go on a capital spending spree.
The position is made more uncertain because the Government have yet to decide how to support new local authority capital investment—whether by capital grant or by revenue grant towards borrowing costs. Knowing how the Treasury operates, I see a risk. Once the Government no longer have to approve local authority borrowing, they may well no longer provide adequate grant aid for capital investment, so further burdens may be placed on the council tax payers.
Clauses 7 and 8 seem to introduce one rule for local government and another for central Government. We are told in the notes that local authorities used to engage in innovative deals to evade controls on borrowing. Clauses 7 and 8 will stop that. We are told that the definition of a credit arrangement will rely on the accounting concept of long-term liabilities. I hope that the same concept will apply to Government borrowing, and that where the Government stand behind Network Rail, the private finance initiative for the tube, or the channel tunnel rail link, those long-term liabilities will also be brought within the definition of borrowing
84
controls. What is sauce for the local government goose should be sauce for the Chancellor's gander. Clause 18 is also relevant because it stops local authorities getting round capital controls by operating through companies that they own or influence. Network Rail is a similar ruse used by central Government.
Clause 11 deals with capital receipts, and I have several concerns about that. I am not sure that the new system is fairer for different groups of council tax payers than the old one. It is indeed the case that housing capital receipts accrue faster in the shire districts, where the right to buy has taken off, than in the inner cities, where the right to buy has generated less in capital receipts. Under the old system, we dealt with that by obliging the shire districts to use the right-to-buy receipts to pay off debt, and we increased the borrowing powers of the inner-city areas so that they could invest in housing. Under that regime, ratepayers in the shire districts benefited because their local authorities' debt was paid off. Under the new system, if I have understood clause 11(2)(b) aright, the cash receipts are to be paid directly to the Secretary of State. If that happens, there will be no benefit to the ratepayers who provided the capital asset in the first place. I think that that needs explaining, as it strikes me as unfair.
There is a second problem with the proposed new regime. It will hit constituencies such as mine hard because housing costs are high and more affordable homes are desperately needed for teachers, nurses, policemen and other key workers. The proposed pooling of housing capital receipts destroys the current regime, under which the capital receipts of Test Valley borough council and Basingstoke and Deane district council are focused on local housing priorities. If the Minister looks across the south, he will see that approximately two thirds of the affordable development programme funding comes from local authority social housing grants; only one third comes from the Housing Corporation's ADP. Pooling the capital receipts knocks away the foundations of the local affordable housing programme. In no way will the Housing Corporation make good the deficit, because it has a regional agenda and has already stated that it will direct its future funding at specific areas of growth such as the Thames gateway.
Prior to the transfer of its housing stock, Test Valley council could produce only 30 affordable housing units a year through the Housing Corporation's ADP. With a combination of the local authority social housing grant and the ADP, it now produces 100 affordable housing units a year. That increase in investment in the provision of new dwellings was one of the main reasons why the council decided to take the route of large-scale voluntary transfer. However, if it can no longer access its capital receipts, the affordable housing programme will dry up.
Indeed, the change compromises the basis of the deal with the local authority tenants. Part of the deal and understanding with tenants was that the money received from the sale of the housing stock would be used to provide affordable housing in the borough. As has been mentioned in relation to part 2, the Government have underestimated the impact on future large-scale voluntary transfers. The programme may die, as there will be little motivation for any council to consider

85
LSVT if one of the major benefits of the capital receipt is removed. I have deep concerns about that part of the Bill.
Even if the Government could claim that part 1 is deregulatory—I have some doubts about it—they certainly cannot say the same about part 2, which creates a wholly new and unnecessary regulatory burden with controls on the adequacy of reserves and the monitoring of budgets. The Bill would be improved if the whole of part 2, which contains clauses 25 to 30, were omitted.
Mr. Raynsford: Does the right hon. Gentleman care to recall the similar provisions relating to local authority housing revenue accounts that his Government—and possibly even he as a Minister—introduced? They were very similar in many respects to those in part 2, which relate to general local authority funding. If he wishes to do away with part 2, why did he introduce similar measures relating to housing?
Sir George Young: My speaking notes contained a section on part 2 that I skipped over because of time pressure. The Government have produced no evidence to show that the controls in clauses 25 and 28 to 30 are necessary other than for a few poorly performing local authorities, and nor am I convinced that the controls would have much impact on such authorities. They simply impose further central prescription on the setting and monitoring of budgets. For most local authorities, existing financial reporting arrangements are wholly adequate.
On clause 78, which deals with bands, I have a lot of sympathy with the points that have been made about the need for a new band at the lower end of the scale, where a number of properties are caught up in a band that is too broad. I have deep reservations, however, about the introduction of a new band at the top end. In the south-east, where house price inflation has taken off, people would suddenly find themselves in a new band and discover that their bills had increased without any change in their circumstances or the services that they receive. If the Government continue piling pressure on the council tax payer, they may find that the consensus on the council tax as an acceptable means of funding local government disappears. In that case, they would be in choppy waters indeed.
I welcome clauses 87 and 88, which deal with housing strategies, although the housing strategy for many local authorities in the south-east will have to be revised because of the impact of the new capital receipts regime. I pause over clause 89, which implies that tenants of indifferent local authorities are to be doubly penalised. First, they have to put up with a bad landlord, but secondly, their housing revenue account will get less subsidy from the Secretary of State because of their having a bad landlord and their rents will therefore be higher. I would like to attend the meeting at which the Minister explains that measure to the tenants of a Labour-controlled inner-city authority.
Clause 90 makes a major change to the housing revenue account, but leaves unaddressed the grievance of tenants in that regard. It is indeed the case that better-off tenants resent subsiding less well-off ones. The notes on the clause criticise the current arrangements because
86
they are not well understood. The trouble is that they are only too well understood by the tenants who have looked at them. They want the subsidy that is provided to less well-off tenants through housing benefit to be removed from the HRA so that their rents can decrease. Clause 90 achieves the first objective but not the second. Housing benefit is taken out of the housing revenue account, but an identical sum is instead paid to the Secretary of State. I doubt whether tenants will derive any comfort from the fact that their rent is no longer going to their neighbour, but to the Government. I believe that we considered that solution, which in my time involved something called negative E7s, and rejected it as more difficult to explain to tenants than the current system. I wish the Minister good luck with that.
I should like to make two short final points. First, I hope that the Government will look again at the impact of pooling on the housing programmes of authorities in the south-east, where there is a desperate shortage of affordable housing currently funded by the local authority social housing grant and where that may be removed. Secondly, notwithstanding the fact that there may be only six Standing Committee sittings on the Bill, my interest on Second Reading does not extend to serving on that Committee.
7.16 pm
Barbara Follett: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young). Unlike him, however, I do not find the Bill boring and or lacking a theme. Its theme is the devolution of powers to the local level. Its aim is to use those powers to drive up standards in the vital services that our local authorities deliver. I am extremely pleased that it is before the House and that my right hon. Friend the Minister is putting it before us.
It is anything but boring to talk about business improvement districts, which are desperately needed in areas such as my own. It is also anything but boring to look at the way in which elections impact on people and schools. Holding two lots of elections in 2004 would do a disservice to the schools in my community. [Interruption.] Yes, it would. Schools would be closed twice. Also, the public can get election fatigue. There is no danger of a very intelligent public confusing the two elections. They will simply be grateful that we are giving them the opportunity to vote once instead of twice. Even though we may not consider that politics can occasionally get boring, believe you me, it can. In the context of all the other pronouncements that I have heard about local government, which can, dare I say it, be extremely boring, the Bill is not. In fact, it verges on being exciting, although I hesitate to use that adjective in terms of local government.
I am concerned about one provision, however, as my earlier intervention illustrated: clause 11 and, in particular, the subsection dealing with capital receipts and debt-free authorities. I represent the new town of Stevenage. I turned 60 on Christmas day and Stevenage is just a little bit younger than me. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] What gallant hon. Members we have in this House. However, I can assure hon. Members that, underneath the facade and the decorative application, I am wearing, just as Stevenage is wearing. However, Stevenage does not have the benefit of the decorative application, and of the Polyfilla that I put on before appearing in this Chamber.

87
In fact, bits of Stevenage are really showing their almost 60-year-old age. One school has seven miles of flat roof. Has anybody got any idea what it costs to repair seven miles of leaking flat roof? Most of the public buildings in Stevenage have flat roofs, because in the late '50s and early '60s, which I remember well, we thought that it was a "brave new world" thing to do to build flat roofs. Now we do not, because we now know the problems that flat roofs cause, but we have them in Stevenage, and Harlow and Hemel Hempstead have them too. In fact, six debt-free new towns have huge infrastructure problems. Although I and others in Stevenage understand the redistributive drive behind the need to pool capital receipts, it will cost us dear and will make it impossible for us to deliver the regeneration that we need in these ageing new towns.
We in Stevenage need a completely revamped town centre. We have huge parking problems because when the town was built in the '60s, it was built for people who had one car or, in the main, no car at all. There is a real problem with parking on grass verges, which we have to address. Part of the £14.4 million that my right hon. Friend rightly said has not been spent on housing in Stevenage has been spent on trying to improve the infrastructure and other local services. The population of Stevenage happens to be particularly needy. We have the highest level of teenage pregnancy in Hertfordshire, and we have to devote a great deal of time and money to social services. Stevenage is one of the few authorities that still gives free milk to school children in the morning. We do this because many of our children come to school having had no breakfast. My husband is the chair of governors in what used to be the worst performing school in Stevenage—thankfully, it has now risen to the middle ranks—and one area that was pinpointed was the fact that the children are hungry. So we give them milk, but this costs money.
Stevenage also has a very high proportion of pensioners. Because it is a new town, most of the people moved there at about the same time, and like me, they are all ageing together. In fact, in Stevenage my age is quite average. Members who got married 20 to 30 years ago, and who suddenly find that every towel is threadbare and that they put their feet through every sheet and duvet that they pick up, will understand the problems experienced by a new town. It is a trousseau problem—everything wears out simultaneously, and that is what is happening in the new towns. We desperately need our capital receipts to provide regeneration, and to provide the services that a slightly hostile, Conservative-controlled county council is not being very helpful with. We need our youth services and the children's play schemes that we run during the school holidays to enable mothers—we have a lot of single mothers—to go out to work.
I therefore beg my right hon. Friend to look at the new towns in particular, and to consider some alleviation in the pooling of capital receipts. I know that he said that we will get back what we say we will spend on housing, but unfortunately some of our need relates not just to housing but to services. Unless we deliver those services, we will be failing the people of our towns. I should point out with the greatest sincerity that it is very difficult indeed for Stevenage borough council—it
88
has been Labour controlled ever since Stevenage became a new town, and is currently the only Labour authority in Hertfordshire—to deliver what it wants to deliver for the people of the town without some alleviation.
I am proud of what Labour has done for Stevenage, and I am very proud indeed of what it has done since 1983. My right hon. Friend said that the new towns received a gift of free housing, but I know that we did not. When that housing was transferred in 1983, we incurred a debt of £66.6 million, which was repayable on a 40-year annuity. We repaid that debt up until 1996, when it was cancelled in return for a reduction in our housing subsidy. So we are still paying it, and I beg my right hon. Friend to look again at how the new towns have repaid that gift of housing stock. I should also like him to consider the state of that gift when we received it. A lot of it consists of poor and experimental housing, and some of it is prefab housing. There are two extremely needy wards in my constituency, and the reason why they are so needy is because of the state of the housing.
I welcome the Bill and the aims of my right hon. Friend, but I ask him to pay particular attention to the needs of the ageing new towns, which, like Stevenage's ageing MP, need a little tender loving care.
7.27 pm
Sir Paul Beresford: There is nothing wrong with my eyesight, and if the hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) is ageing, she is ageing a darned sight better than I am—even when I pull my jacket in.
I have great sympathy for the hon. Lady's point about the pooling of capital receipts. In fact, as she knows the Select Committee felt exactly the same way, but we did not restrict the argument to the new towns. Indeed, many of the points that she made apply to local authorities throughout the country. Capital receipts are assets that they wish to use for various facilities in their own areas. They paid for them, so why should they not use them? For those that have not made use of that opportunity, the pooling of those receipts is not a good idea.
The Minister spoke at length—both today and before the Select Committee —about how superb and positive the Bill is, and how it will introduce huge freedoms, and so on. However, as he is probably aware, the Committee was underwhelmed by it, and in this regard he seems to be on his own. It is perhaps worth quoting from the first paragraph of the list of conclusions in the Committee's report on the draft Bill. It states:
"On the whole the draft Bill appears to be far from a radical overhaul and in many cases gives more powers to the Secretary of State. The way in which it is drafted could enmesh local authorities in more regulation. We are furthermore concerned that aspects of the Bill centralise powers unnecessarily."
It is probably worth touching on that particular aspect in the short time available. This is yet another classic example of Government spin. They talk of freedom and of greater democracy, but in fact they are providing exactly the opposite. At best, the Bill redefines the methods of restrictions, and at worst it actually increases bureaucracy and regulation.

89
Most of the Minister's spin has concerned authorities having much greater freedom to borrow for capital expenditure, but his own Department's explanatory notes point out that this applies only
"where they can afford to service the debt."
It is clear that any local authority has to estimate the availability of revenue to cover that aspect of any capital borrowing. Particularly following the announcement of the grant regime for next year, with central Government direction on levels of expenditure in many areas, coupled with target grants and ring-fenced grants, the Government's hold on local government revenue expenditure is tighter than ever.
There is no doubt that, for ordinary capital spending, local authorities are heavily dependent on annual Government support. No prudent local authority will assess that long-term borrowing as affordable in any ordinary sense of the word unless there is a good expectation of full Government support. Such an expectation is the basis on which local authorities have borrowed for many years, as credit approvals have automatically generated additional annual grant under the standing spending assessment.
I understand that local authorities are still awaiting the Government's proposals—which were promised last summer—for future grant arrangements to support capital spending. The natural expectation for many local authorities, following the Government's deeply entrenched centralisation techniques, is that the current controls, though credit approvals, will be replaced by an equally restrictive regime of conditional grant approvals. To back their claim of further freedom, the Government are relying on the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy to develop what is called a prudential code to define what borrowing is affordable, and what is not.
I understand that the institute has prepared a draft code that will impose more performance yardsticks and more bureaucratic procedures on local authorities—as if they did not have enough already. I further understand that the draft code focuses only on the first three years, and that it therefore cannot address the fundamental problem that local authorities are not in a position to assess affordability for many years ahead—in other words, over the whole period of the standard time of local authority debt.
In essence, the overall effect of these proposals will be an increase in bureaucracy, with little or no worthwhile gain of freedom from Government controls. Is all the pain worth the bother, given that there will be such little gain?
Clause 11 has been touched on already. It gives a general power to the Secretary of State to confiscate the housing capital receipts of local authorities. I suppose that few people will be surprised about that, given the political machinations relating to the formula for distribution of revenue grant. Here again, the Government are intervening by giving to themselves the powers to confiscate housing capital receipts and consign them to a central pool. Although I guess that that procedure may be the Deputy Prime Minister's way of killing dead the right to buy—a constant blind spot in his tunnel vision—this manoeuvre, on local practical grounds, will destroy any interest in maintaining incentives for the good management of public assets.
90
The Minister assured the Select Committee that that confiscation would not be allowed to have a retrospective effect. That was very welcome. It is therefore with great concern that, according to my quick reading of the explanatory notes to the Bill, the effect of the assurance applies only to debt-free authorities. I hope that, when he winds up the debate, the Minister will reassure the House on that matter.
This Government, and in particular the Minister of State and his predecessor, constantly say that they trust local government and wish to give it more freedoms. If that were really so, clauses 25 to 28 could be deleted. They contain a high-handed and unnecessary range of procedures and prescriptions about local authority reserves and budgetary controls. The absolutely irresponsible behaviour of a few authorities in the late 1980s, and especially of some Labour authorities in that period, is no longer evident. Small changes made since then now protect public expenditure and, as a consequence, we do not need all the proposed restrictions. Indeed, no other public bodies are subject to this degree of legal prescription. In essence, all local authorities are being treated as if they were less capable of running their finances than colleges and housing associations.
As I have already said, legal safeguards currently exist. They require the appointment of properly qualified officers to take charge of financial administration, the adoption of proper accounting practices, and internal and external audit. Furthermore, there is a requirement that each local authority must review its reserves before it decides the level of council tax. Even if the Minister can point to any cases where these legal safeguards have proved inadequate—and he mentioned one—methods already exist that make it possible to alter one local authority's approach without imposing extra burdens on other authorities, as clauses 25 to 28 do.
The cost and delay caused by the restrictions imposed by these further bureaucratic burdens will tend to degrade overall performance and increase financial costs.
Mr. Raynsford: Earlier, I asked the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) a question to which he did not make a complete response, so perhaps I can ask the hon. Gentleman the same question. Why, if the measures are so objectionable to Conservative Members, did the previous Conservative Government impose rather more stringent controls on local authority housing revenue accounts? The controls were designed on exactly the same lines as those proposed in the Bill, in that they required minimum balances and reserves, and very specific observation of budgeting rules. Why was that acceptable under a Conservative Government, but not under this one?
Sir Paul Beresford: It is an interesting question. I do not want to dodge it, but I must point out that I was not here at the time. Did the Minister support the Conservative proposals, or vote against them? Moreover, the Conservative proposals applied to only

91
one element of a local authority's budget, whereas this Government's proposals apply to the whole budget of every authority.
Mr. McWalter: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the previous Conservative Government had a highly centralising approach to local government, whereas this Bill purports to be liberating and devolving?
Mr. Curry: The verb "purports" is an interesting one to use.
Sir Paul Beresford: As my right hon. Friend notes, the verb "purports" is interesting in this context. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Bill carefully and talks to his local authority's finance officers quietly behind closed doors, he may find that he supports many of the concerns expressed by Conservative Members. The Bill purports to be decentralising, but in reality is not.
The draft Bill included references to the general formula grant. Presumably, those references related to the ministerial speeches and papers that preceded the Bill, when Ministers explained that the Government's intention was to improve the general grant system, giving more predictability and stability in order to support long-term planning and strengthen local authority accountability. The proposals have since been dropped and replaced by clause 31, which proposes an unrestricted power to enable Ministers to
"pay a grant to a local authority towards expenditure incurred or to be incurred by it".
Furthermore, clause 32, contains an "ancillary" power to require a local authority to formulate policies in relation to any matter and to supply such information as the Minister may require.
That is an absolute monstrosity. The power is much more wide ranging than any that I know, and it will allow direct opportunity for funding by ministerial whim. There are no safeguards, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) noted. There is no requirement for prior consultation with local government, nor even for a statement to be made—for instance, within six months of the end of each financial year—showing all the grants paid to each individual local authority in exercising this power. The proposal is yet another example of central direction that will enable Ministers to provide grants to local authorities as they see fit. In other words, it is the specific, targeted grants system taken just a little further.
Mr. Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Minister intervened on me when I made that point. He said that parliamentary scrutiny would be provided by means of the estimates debates. However, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the estimates procedure is in such a sorry state that it will not provide real scrutiny of the new grants, which will therefore be open to the abuse that he has described?
Sir Paul Beresford: One problem with the present scrutiny system is that there is so much to scrutinise and so little time available. I believe that the proposed system could be manoeuvred by Ministers, who will face no risk of intervention.
92
The next station on the centralisation line is the new approach to the housing revenue account. The Bill introduces a subjective basis for determining annual subsidy. That will destroy the improvement in predictability achieved in the past year or so. That predictability was welcomed by housing authorities, but the Bill will replace it with confusion and uncertainty. To add to the difficulty, and to exacerbate the continued trend of centralisation, clauses 89 and 92 will allow the Government to determine by formula the rent of every council and housing association dwelling in England. The proposal will destroy the previous provision in the Housing Act 1985, under which housing authorities must have regard to the pattern of private sector renting in deciding rent distributions for their own dwellings, thus ensuring that differentials reflected tenants' own experience.
Finally, it is worth referring to clauses 101 and 102, which have not been touched on, but which provide the opportunity for the Secretary of State to interfere even in the minute detail of contracting-out exercises. Clauses 101 and 102 will essentially remove the opportunities for any of the benefits to local council tax payers and residents of the discipline of competitive tendering. Perhaps that is a suitable note on which to end a Bill from this Government. In essence, this restrictive, centralising Bill will further damage the freedoms of local government, while flying under the Government's tarnished flag of the so-called expansion of local government freedoms.
7.40 pm
Mr. David Lepper: I wish to concentrate on part 4, which relates to business improvement districts, but I should like to welcome some other aspects of the Bill before doing so, such as the help that it will provide to small businesses, and, despite what the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) has just said, the measures to protect the rights of local authority staff, especially their pension rights when councils contract out their services.
I welcome the ability of councils to trade, and mine is likely to be one of them as Brighton and Hove city council achieved a good rating. The right to vary the discount for empty private properties and second homes will be much welcomed in areas such as mine with very real housing need and where several hundred private accommodation units are still empty.
I also welcome clause 82 on quashing liability orders. I have raised that issue with Ministers on several occasions on behalf of a constituent who understandably felt that, although it was acknowledged that a liability order served on him was a mistake, a blot would remain on his character unless the council went through the expensive higher court action procedures, which the Bill will replace with a simple recourse to magistrates.
I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Minister has said about a possible amendment to section 28. It seems to me that, despite the nit-picking comments made by some hon. Members earlier, it does not matter whether the Government or a Back-Bench Member introduces that proposed amendment to repeal section 28. The important thing is that an item on the statute book that remains to many gay and lesbian people a threat and a

93
powerful symbol of prejudice and discrimination is removed. Through their action on adoption and their forthcoming proposals on partnership rights, the Government are already doing much to combat that discrimination and prejudice. I hope that when that proposal is introduced—I am sure that it will be—official Opposition Members who wish to support such an amendment will at least be free to do so, even if they are not whipped to do so.
I come now to business improvement districts. I pay tribute to the Association of Town Centre Management for the ceaseless work that it has undertaken over the years to promote the idea of business improvement districts. I am glad that the all-party group on town centre management issues, which I have the honour to chair, has been able to play its part in that lobbying. I am also pleased—I have to declare an interest—that I have been asked to chair the steering group on business improvement district pilot projects, which is being administered on behalf of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister by that association. That steering group brings together the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Countryside Agency, English Partnerships and the private sector.
I also pay tribute to the many town centre managers and their teams who brought together the public and private sectors in town and cities across the country to improve their areas, to bring new prosperity to local businesses and generally to revitalise town centres as places in which to work, to do business and to live. I pay tribute especially to the work of the Brighton city centre business forum and its manager, Tony Mernagh, and its chair, Derek Maddison. Not the least of their achievements has been bringing together businesses, the council and the police to make Brighton the first of the south's cities to receive the Home Office safe shopping award, combating retail crime.
In 1999, Lord Rogers' urban taskforce report proposed town improvement zones, recognising the problem with many town centre management schemes was the difficulty of securing sustainable funding. That problem was underlined by the study undertaken by the Association of Town Centre Management on behalf of the then Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on schemes in six towns and cities. The study showed that the time devoted to fundraising weakened the effectiveness of the schemes themselves and that making funding dependent on voluntary contributions generated a sense of vulnerability. It also showed that there was some resentment against those who did not make the voluntary contributions but who still benefited from the cleaner streets, safer environment and the increase in customers that the town centre management scheme brings to the area.
The proposals in part 4 are welcome, as they will provide a way to find sustainable funding for those improvement schemes by allowing a levy of businesses to be used, with the agreement of those businesses, specifically for agreed improvements to make areas safer and cleaner and to deal with crime and grime. Some hon. Members may be sceptical about the idea of business rate payers being willing to pay more. To those sceptics, let me say that more than 80 councils across the political spectrum expressed an interest in becoming pilot hid areas and more than 50 have subsequently submitted formal applications.
94
The intention is that when the legislation is in place, as it should be by the summer, some 20 or so pilot areas should be ready to test and, I believe, demonstrate the benefits that BIDs can bring to an area. May I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) that it is certainly the intention that those pilot areas should be representative not only of city centres, but of suburbs, market towns, coastal towns and all the regions of England as well.
Those who have had the opportunity to talk, for example, to Robert Walsh, New York's commissioner for business improvement districts, will have no doubt about the benefits of those schemes. The statistics that I would use are rather more up to date than those referred to by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), given that they apply to the past five years or so.
In New York's BIDs, empty commercial properties have been filled, graffiti has been dealt with effectively and 40,000 new jobs have been created during those five years. Similar results are on record for Philadelphia and Washington DC. In Washington, there has been a 28 per cent. drop in serious crime, thefts from cars are down by 71.6 per cent. and pick-pocketing is down by 50 per cent.
This is new territory, bringing together the public and private sectors. The Government's proposed ballot process—the total rateable value of those in favour of such a scheme has to exceed that of those against—seems to be a way to guard against domination by large multiple retailers or the independent sector. It is also a way to maximise turnout and to secure a democratic mandate before schemes can go ahead for an initial five-year period. However, as I have said, this is new territory, so I wish to indicate two issues on which I hope that Ministers will ensure that there is clear guidance and which need detailed consideration. The money raised in BID areas must ensure true additionality for the services provided, and the criteria for defining that additionality must be absolutely clear if the proposals for a BID are to command support.
Secondly, I believe that the use of the business rating system as proposed is the clearest basis for the levy. Through the CBI and the British Property Federation, however, landlords have expressed genuine support for BIDs and a wish to play a formal role. Complex arrangements could no doubt be devised to bring the property owners and the tenants into the voting process. I am not sure, however, that that would be the most profitable way to proceed at present. I urge Ministers, however, to give proper consideration to ways in which property owners can be involved formally in a relationship with those who have voted for the BID.
Mr. Patrick Hall: In relation to the role of property owners, I take it that my hon. Friend refers to freeholders. If so—and if they are to make a contribution, which sounds fair in principle—perhaps they would also like to have a vote. That would entail the grave difficulties of identifying those people. In many town centres, the freeholders are remote, they hardly ever visit, and their property portfolios are looked after by managing agents. That is a problem.
Mr. Lepper: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I remind him that, as a representative of part

95
of the city that provided a home for Mr. Nicholas van Hoogstraten—until Her Majesty provided a home for him outside the Brighton and Hove area—I am aware of the difficulties of tracking down the property owners. I hope that I have indicated that my view is that the business rating system is the best basis for voting on BIDs. I hope, however, that Ministers will consider carefully—and that the Committee will consider—the possibility of a formal relationship between property owners and tenants in the BID, to enable property owners to manage some form of contribution.
I am mindful of the wish of many Labour Members, if not official or unofficial Opposition Members, to take part in this debate—that may be a comment on the value given to local government by the different political parties —and I will end my contribution with those remarks. I look forward to my right hon. Friend's comments in his summing-up.
7.53 pm
Mr. David Curry: My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) indicated that, with regard to serving on the Bill Committee, he might wait for the film. I may be a glutton for punishment—or a sufferer from excess nostalgia—but I am willing to serve on the Bill Committee. It is not merely that the Minister's company is invariably entertaining and agreeable, but that once one has got into a habit it is difficult, as all old lags find, to get rid of it. This area is so frequently abstruse that one might as well maintain one's reputation for having expertise in it, especially as few people would even aspire to have such expertise.
This is yet another Local Government Bill and, as we are in a period in which we are giving fundamental consideration to what we must now call the governance of the United Kingdom, it might be sensible to look at what it tells us about the relationship between central and local government: mainly, to lament that the Government do not seem to want to stand back and look at where the proper balance lies between the two authorities, and at the whole issue of authority and accountability.
The political architecture is changing considerably. Multinational decision-taking structures are growing, and although the European Union tends to preoccupy us because of its relationship to the authority of this place, it is far from being the only one. A diversification of authority has taken place within the United Kingdom, with the creation of a semi-federal system, and if we move towards regional government we will have an even more federal system, although a remarkably heterogeneous one, as it will be far from uniform in application. Equally, a process of atomisation as opposed to globalisation has taken place, with devolution "à l'outrance" to the local citizen on the school board, for example. That is passing through the instruments of democratic accountability. Much is therefore changing. At the same time, we see a much more diversified service delivery between the public sector, the private sector and voluntary bodies of one sort or another. Without wishing to trespass on the quarrel between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that is likely to be one of the dominant themes of the next year in politics.
96
Why are the Government so persistently anxious to maintain their hand on the brake of local government? Why are they anxious to be the back-seat driver and, on many occasions, sit in the front seat too? There are three reasons. First, as the Minister mentioned—this is an excerpt from my speeches as a Minister and the speeches of my predecessors—local government spends 25 per cent. of all public expenditure. The figure was £40 billion in my day, and it is more now. No Government trying to maintain national competitiveness in a globally competitive marketplace can afford not to take a view on what is the correct volume of that expenditure. There is no point in pretending otherwise or looking back for a lost golden age in which that did not happen. We are in a modern world in which that is an inescapable imperative.
Secondly, there is a need to get value for money in an age of restraint on the share of GDP that Governments feel that they can take, partly for the reasons that I have just mentioned and partly because of the allergies that have overcome the political system about the raising of more money in taxation, particularly in highly visible direct taxation. The Government may be finding some way out of that allergy through their persistent tax increases.
Thirdly, there is the distrust of a political culture in local government, which all parties share. Ironically, the last Conservative Government had the same problem as this Government: old Labour and local government. I do not know which of those Governments have been more inconvenienced by that. We have certainly both been inconvenienced, and that was the cause of a great deal of distrust of what was happening in local government, even though old Labour was often new polytechnic when translated into local government terms. That manifested itself under the Conservative Government in instruments such as capping. There were a series of tough settlements, although the suggestion by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) that there were cuts in real terms year after year was a fictional element in his contribution. Compulsory competitive tendering was important as many local authorities had no way of assessing what was a proper place for a service before an element of competition was introduced into the tendering process. The Audit Commission, which has now become a sort of super-gendarme in the firmament of this Government, was an invention of the previous Conservative Government.
The Tory Government used weapons that were largely financial as instruments of control of local government. Under this Administration, the instruments used are much more managerial in approach, although not exclusively so, as that does not take account of the financial instrument of a very great increase in direct grants—a kind of challenge to non-hypothecation—which has been carried out over the last few years. Best value was the great instrument that replaced compulsory competitive tendering through the wonderful regime of the gendarmes that attended almost every move of local government. The then Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) —who is now, in political terms at any rate, deceased—confessed at Harrogate that the machinery had become too heavy and would have to be unwound to an extent. It was certainly oppressive and time consuming.

97
Subsequently, we have seen the prescription of how councils were to run themselves, of which the Tory Government never even aspired to dream, and the choice of a mechanism by which they were to discharge their political function, let alone their services. We had elected mayors, a process that went catastrophically wrong in the places where it was tried, cabinets and the mayor plus manager. All those systems were prescribed on the basis of token notice being taken of the views of the general public as expressed in referendums with extraordinarily low thresholds for turnout and the majorities needed to bring about change. The proposals for regional assemblies have further implications for the planning role of local government. We therefore have an incredibly confused architecture of government and confusion as to where the Government see the broad thrust of their strategy leading. I fear that there is no clear strategy.
There have been more generous settlements recently but, because of the way in which council tax works and the gearings that are involved, there have been spectacular increases in the council tax needed to deliver services. At the same time, there has been an increase in micro-management, with the daftest increase of all being that whereby the Government take money off the national health service to give it back to local government so that it can it repay the NHS to deal with the problem of bed blocking. If ever tautology was written into legislation, the Government have managed it with that particular provision.
There is much talk of freedom, which is the new buzzword in local government. However, there are two sorts of freedom: the freedom from and the freedom to. It is important to draw a distinction between the two. Much of what has happened of substance is of the freedom from variety rather than the freedom to. For example, a policy classifies councils in a range from excellence to Hackney, which I suppose is the effective classification for councils at that end of the range.
The rewards offered to councils include a reduction in ring fencing, the removal of the requirement for statutory plans, a reduction in the level of the intensity of inspections and the removal of the never used threat of capping. They are part of a local government parole system. Councils are allowed out on parole after a period of good behaviour, but the classification itself is still a central mechanism that is too dependent on Ofsted's classification of education spending and the way in which Ofsted defines that. There must be greater equivalence between the way in which Ofsted judges education services and the judgment that is made of other services if the classification is to operate fairly.
The inevitable question that we ask ourselves about the Bill is whether it contains more freedoms. As many speakers have said, it contains more freedoms, but we are also moving in the opposite direction simultaneously. It is an itsy-bitsy Bill, like so many other itsy-bitsy Government Bills. The freedoms in it are far from clear cut or they represent an ambiguous new direction. For example, while the Minister talks about freedom, he will no doubt be aware that the Department for Education and Skills, which has always been the most Stalinist Department when it comes to controlling its expenditure, is even now telling local authorities that it must passport through to schools a volume of their budgets. Local authorities that have received a baseline
98
increase in their budgets have been told that the Department has to passport more than the entire increase in their resources to schools. That is prescription in its most extreme form and lives alongside the Minister's claims that it is a greater freedom.
On balance, I welcome the proposals on capital finance. However, they do not involve freedoms US-style. Although one or two local authorities will have their own credit ratings—they are very much at the limit—they are not companies going to market. All local authorities will continue to borrow from the Public Works Loan Board and will all pay the same rates of interest. I hope that arrangements will be made so that, if there is early repayment of debt, they do not suffer from some of the disadvantages that have occurred with voluntary transfers. That would constitute a serious disincentive. Furthermore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) pointed out, we do not know what the support arrangements will be for the continued capital borrowing that will continue to form the lion's share of the capital investment made by local authorities.
I think that I am in favour of the proposals to trade and change provided that there are the obvious safeguards for competition between local authority and other suppliers. Some of the other measures in the Bill introduce sensible flexibilities, including the new stab at rate relief for small businesses. If I may make a forecast that is born of the scars that I bear, that proposal will be welcomed and then immediately dismissed as being wholly inadequate for the needs of small businesses.
I am hesitant about the proposal for the pooling of housing capital receipts for precisely the reasons that my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire has already outlined. I will not repeat what he said other than to say that I hope that we will receive clarification in Committee so that we can understand how the proposal will work.
I am also cautious about introducing too many changes to council tax. It has the advantage of being a very efficient tax in terms of its rates of collection. Many local authorities are very close to collecting the practical maximum of what can be collected. However, I accept that there is a problem, notably for lower-value properties, and the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) has already mentioned that. If we could introduce a little more logic into the system, we could all escape from the silly political business of swapping arguments about which party charges council tax payers less. We all know that the answer is fundamentally a function of the proportion of houses of different grades that are in each local authority area. The Minister must accept that, because of inflation in house prices, people will be deeply concerned to find themselves suddenly in a new band when the level of services provided remains the same. The council tax is designed to create a balance between capital values and services delivered, and that balance must be maintained.
Where does the Bill leave us? It leaves us with small increases in discretion and flexibility; it maintains a largely command-and-control system from central Government; and the prevailing culture is still that of reward for performance. We have not really considered whether and how we can reassert representative

99
democracy, so it is not a case of paradise gained or even of nirvana deferred. It is a small earthquake in Walsall, with not many shaken.
8.7 pm
Mr. Patrick Hall: I will concentrate my remarks on part 4 of the Bill as I strongly support the proposal that business improvement districts be enabled. It will turn out to be an extremely positive and welcome initiative that could yield wide-ranging and lasting benefits throughout the country. My remarks have been encouraged by the views of the Bedford Town Centre Company as well as by my experience as the former town centre manager for Bedford and as a member of the all-party group on town centre management.
It is difficult to write down a formula that would produce a successful town centre—so many ingredients and variables are involved. None the less, when we enter a successful town centre, it is clear that our experience is very different from what it would be if we were in a town that was failing. I had better resist the temptation to devise a formula for success. A thriving town centre, however, is successful economically, socially and environmentally. It has achieved that state of affairs because certain functions and activities are integrated and working together rather than operating in an isolated and fragmented way. It is all too easy for isolation and fragmentation to be the order of the day in town centres.
The private sector is, by definition, individualistic. It mainly comprises individual shops, services and businesses that are in competition. It is self-evident that shops in a town centre are often in direct competition with each other. The public sector, which looks after the public realm in the town centre—street lighting, cleansing, policing and so on—is the responsibility of different agencies and departments. They can act without reference to each other, which all too often happens, even with bodies in the same local authority. If left to itself, the town centre can be characterised by a lack of co-ordination. It has increasingly been acknowledged over the past 20 years or so that deliberate action must be taken to encourage different interest groups to talk to each other, to work together and to act in partnership to achieve common goals. That is what town centre management is all about. When it works, it benefits everyone: trade, the shopper, the visitor and the public realm as a whole.
There are many successful examples of town centre management initiatives across the country. The establishment of the Association of Town Centre Management in the early or mid-1980s considerably boosted the status of town centre management. It has helped to generate debate, raise awareness, undertake research and promote good practice by being in touch with what is happening on the ground daily. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) referred to the association.
One of the consistent features of town centre management identified by the association that has been experienced by town centre managers around the country and by town centre partnerships is that
100
although everyone clamours for initiatives such as Christmas lighting, Britain in bloom projects, shopping guides and competitions from which all parties gain, few are willing to pay for them. Apart from that being inherently unfair and causing ill feeling, it also suggests that it is possible to achieve even more if only all the parties were to contribute. I believe that the potential is considerable, which is where business improvement districts come in. It is inherently fair that costs are spread among those who might benefit. In addition, the necessity of working in a partnership to draw up the business plan for a local business improvement district and the need to campaign to advocate a BID to win the vote should generate even more ideas and commitment, as well as the sustained additional income that current town centre management arrangements are able to provide. That is the great benefit—the great beauty—of the idea.
In my opinion, a successful system of BIDs could represent a breakthrough in town centre management. That is also the understanding of the Bedford Town Centre Company and the perception of the Association of Town Centre Management. I echo the congratulations that my hon. Friend extended to the association on having the foresight to prepare for the enabling primary legislation by promoting pilot BIDs in different parts of the country. That is important because it will take time for a BID proposal to be properly prepared and to stand a fair chance of winning a yes vote in a local ballot of business rate payers. By encouraging the work to be undertaken now, a number of proposals and ballots could be launched next year, when we hope that the legislation will come into effect. Schemes will be ready to hit the ground running, which is welcome. The selection of pilot BIDs is a matter for the Association of Town Centre Management. I am pleased that the Bedford Town Centre Company, among others, has put in its application. It has done so with strong support from many interest groups and people within Bedford. That is the result of its enthusiasm and hard work, and I wish it well.
I wish to question one aspect of the BID proposals: the nature of the ballot of business rate payers within the defined bid area that is required before a scheme can proceed. Clause 52 requires that a simple majority of those voting must vote in favour for a BID and the levy to go ahead. That is uncontroversial; we all understand it. It goes on to say, however, that, for a scheme to proceed, the total rateable value of the properties of those voting yes must be greater than the value of those voting no. So even if a majority of small businesses voted no, a scheme could go ahead anyway because the big boys say yes—or vice versa. That would be a bizarre situation, and I do not see it creating consensus, partnership and credibility. After all, life will go on, and there will be a need to address town centre management issues after a ballot has been held.
We abolished the property qualification in the general franchise more than 120 years ago. A person's vote is not worth more because his or her property happens to be more valuable than someone else's. I think that Ministers have missed an important point.
Business improvement districts can open up effective town centre management schemes by drawing in ideas and commitment from the smallest business as well as the largest. They can all operate as equals and in

101
partnership, paying a levy according to the scheme agreed locally, which may, as we see in the Bill, vary according to turnover or rateable value—something for the local partnership to determine before the ballot is held. That is very different from saying that the value of a vote in the initiating ballot should be weighted according to rateable value.
I am extremely concerned about this proposal. Why complicate matters? Having counted the votes, the returning officer of the local authority will then have to identify and add up the rateable values. There is a lot of scope for dispute, uncertainty and error, especially if the result is close. I ask Ministers to keep this simple and credible and to stick to a system that everyone respects and understands. The only system with legitimacy is the one that encourages people to vote yes or no and the majority wins.
Mr. Clifton-Brown rose—
Mr. Hall: I am about to conclude.
I do not think it wise for the Government to be prescriptive. We heard some comments about the lack of prescription in the Bill, but it is not necessary here. I urge the Government to think again and not to allow this aspect of the BID proposal to undermine an otherwise excellent initiative.
8.17 pm
Mr. Mark Field: I, too, want to concentrate on business improvement districts, as the hon. Members for Bedford (Mr. Hall) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) did. However, I should like to start with some more general comments.
My background is in local government, although it is not as illustrious as those of many of today's speakers. That is no longer a matter of embarrassment in the Conservative party, as it might have been in the past. I am a great believer in the concept of localism, and it seems that localism will be achievable only with far greater financial autonomy. The Bill is deeply centralising, and in that regard I endorse the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford).
In London we have had a dire experience since the mayoral election two and a half years ago. There is a lack of financial transparency. The battle between the Mayor of London and the Treasury means that Londoners have lost out. That is evident from our public services, not least London Underground.
The Bill makes some significant claims on council tax issues. I confess that I disagree profoundly with the second home provisions in clause 75, which seemed to have almost universal support earlier. The clause displays a strong misunderstanding of the notion of the council tax, introduced in 1991, which was designed to be partly a property and partly a personal tax. That is the basis for the 50 per cent. second home discount. However, I accept that Government pressure on local authorities, particularly Conservative local authorities, has forced a number of the Tory shire counties to lobby for this change, which I suspect will be made.
In general, I support the concept of revaluation, but I disagree with the power in clause 78 to change the valuation bands, with one caveat that was referred to
102
forcefully by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett). Obviously the point is unknown to me from my constituency experience in central London, but clearly, if there should be a subdivision of band A in a number of our bigger northern cities it would make sense to have one.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am sure that my hon. Friend, with his knowledge of local government, can cast his mind back to the introduction of the council tax bands in 1991. He will remember that a large number of appeals were made, because people were aggrieved at finding themselves in a certain band. If we restructure the bands, exactly the same thing will happen. Does he agree that that would place a huge burden on local authorities?
Mr. Field: I could not agree more, and a wholesale revaluation or rebanding in that regard would not make a great deal of sense. Interestingly, when all those appeals took place 10 or 11 years ago, a lot of people felt aggrieved because the property market was somewhat questionable—it was coming down. Within a short time—perhaps this applies mainly to London and the south-east—a lot of people were keen for their properties to be revalued into a higher band for council tax purposes, which obviously made a difference to the resale value of their property.
I am concerned that the proposals to extend the number of bands beyond eight to perhaps 10 or even a dozen are, effectively, another stealth tax on middle class London and the south-east. We have already seen something of a gerrymandering of the grant system to favour the north of England and Scotland. There is no doubt that the old standard spending assessment was a complex system for local government finance, but the new system does not seem any more straightforward or transparent to me. Transparency must be at the core of the council tax, not least because if we are to move towards more local autonomy we should consider more local taxes. We should examine the American example, which involves raising a sales tax locally and using it on local matters.
As Ministers have rightly pointed out, we face a great concern that goes back to when my party was in government: more than 80 per cent. of local authority expenditure comes from central Government grant or the uniform business rate, so it is perhaps unsurprising that we have concerns over centralisation.
Business improvement districts are of key importance in my constituency, as they are in that of the hon. Member for Bedford. They are, of course, an American concept that was pioneered to provide a mechanism for private sector leadership in the general improvement of a locality. In my constituency, we have the New West End Company, which takes in Oxford street, Bond street and Regent street. I am inclined to think of the dark green spaces on a Monopoly board. Perhaps the idea would not have quite so much success in Old Kent road or Whitechapel road. Thankfully, neither is in my constituency.
One benefit of the proposal is that it would allow people to work alongside local stakeholders. The private sector, therefore, would be able to take a lead on long-term projects, over and above the general local authority

103
services. However, as a number of Members have pointed out, we must ensure that there is a genuine sense of additionality rather than a feeling that local government funding is simply being replaced.
We also need to ensure that there is greater public reassurance as to the deterrence of crime. I support zero tolerance on quality of life issues such as illegal street trading and graffiti. We must also ensure that we spruce up open spaces and enhance sanitation in many of our inner cities.
I also support the Government's safeguards for the minority interest, which are in clause 52 and which were referred to somewhat less favourably by the hon. Member for Bedford. It strikes me as fair to have a twofold test involving, initially, the majority of stakeholders. However, the test must also represent a majority of rateable values. Interestingly, in New York, for example, a 60 per cent. values test applies. However, we must ensure that there are at least some safeguards against the "no taxation without representation" argument, which could equally be put by unreconciled minorities.
I hope that we shall be reassured in Committee on the organisation of ballots—regulations need to be set out in more detail than in clause 57—and we must also consider the potential use of a veto by any relevant local authority.
The key long-term effect of business improvement districts, however, is that they result in increased property values so, as has been pointed out, property owners and not just tenants stand to gain most from their success. In the United States, for example, property owners pay rates but in the UK it is envisaged that the occupiers will pay, although owners have a greater vested interest in the long-term success of the area.
There is genuine concern that the UK approach will not be workable as that unfairness could impede initial interest in BIDs as well as their longer-term sustainability. I realise that we shall discuss these points in greater detail in Committee but, notwithstanding the Minister's earlier comments, there should be more detail in the Bill rather than leaving the matter for regulation at a later stage. I accept the argument that we need a sense of flexibility—it is an entirely new area and we do not want to take an overly prescriptive view. However, there is a real worry that unless there is a clear idea in the minds of local businesses in areas that are subject to a BID scheme, there will be no BID at all.
The experience of Westminster city council in joint partnering with the private sector to fund such improvements is that land owners rather than occupiers are willing to contribute. Their engagement in business improvement districts should remain explicit. That experience is confirmed by the New West End Company, to which I referred earlier. The whole initiative has been driven by property owners; more than two thirds of the £1.6 million budget of the past three years was funded by owners rather than tenants. I appreciate that what goes on in the west end of London may be somewhat different from what happens in many other parts of the UK, but it shows the importance of bringing owners on board at an early stage.
104
Comparisons have been made both with New York and with other US cities, especially by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper). However, one or two of those comparisons do not entirely pass muster and when we are setting up BIDs we should ensure that we do not have such high expectations for them that they are disappointed. In New York, for example, BIDs came in only after a large increase in police numbers and a commensurate fall in crime rates. Similarly, New York could generate specific quality of life legislation in some localities. Even though we can make use of byelaws in this country, such legislation would not be appropriate in the UK. Furthermore, New York has a 24-hour transport system and is able to disperse large crowds rapidly—that is especially relevant for London—so it is far easier to deal with quality of life issues there.
I have grave concerns about several other points to which my right hon. and hon. Friends have already referred. However, the BIDs initiative is positive. It needs far more scrutiny in Committee, which I hope will ensure that a robust business improvement district regime will come about.
8.28 pm
Kali Mountford: Many Members have said that the Bill is confusing, but I think that the debate itself has been confusing. The Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), told us that he supports the Bill but is critical of certain aspects of it. A more intriguing contribution came from an old friend of mine, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). I am sad to see that he is not in his place, because I greatly enjoy sparring with him. He told us why he did not support the Bill, yet many of his hon. Friends said that some parts of it had merit. It is thus not surprising that I feel somewhat confused by the different positions adopted within the two Opposition parties.
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), who talked at length about the essence of community and community life. He described how we reach up from our communities to local government, to central Government and even beyond to the European Parliament to find ways of improving our lives. For that reason, business improvement districts are a good idea.
My constituency has hardly any areas that might attract objective 1 or objective 2 funding for investment in their communities. In areas such as mine, where the communities are largely rural, BIDs will give us the chance to reach out and invest in our businesses and deal with them in ways that are locally accountable. In a very short time, on 10 February, I shall meet business people and the many partners that work with the local authority to discuss how to develop Holmfirth, which many hon. Members will recognise from "Last of the Summer Wine". That community is highly developed, and the people there know what the essence of their community is.
For the purpose of this debate, an element of our communities is missing. Certain members of the community have been vilified by pernicious legislation, and this should be an opportunity for us to remove it. Many hon. Members know it as section 28, but its proper title is section 2A of the Local Government Act

105
1986. The Act has been in place for 17 years, and, to my knowledge, has never been used by any local authority. We have heard about freedoms of many kinds today. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) —with whom I enjoyed sparring when he held the office of Minister with responsibility for local government and I was chair of finance on a metropolitan council—captured the essence of the argument for me in asking whether we have "freedom from", or "freedom to". He did not, however, extend that argument to the freedom that we ought to allow teachers and parents in educating our children.
We are leaving on the statute book an onerous responsibility for local education authorities that they cannot use and which has no place. The right hon. Gentleman also talked about the atomisation of local government, down even to governor level, yet he did not go on to say that local governors, teachers, parents and the children themselves in a school community have clear ideas about how sex education ought to be dealt with. Indeed, many other pieces of legislation have been placed on our statute book over the last 18 months to two years. I am thinking of different aspects of health Bills, and of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000. I am also thinking of the Bill before us today, which could offer us the opportunity to put right this situation.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that, since local management of schools came in, what is taught in schools, particularly in respect of sex education, is entirely a matter for the discretion of the governing body and therefore not affected by this legislation, which merely constrains what local government can properly spend its money on?
Kali Mountford: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. Since those matters are the responsibility of governors, that piece of legislation should not be left in a Local Government Act when it is no longer required. It is an anachronism, and it is time that it went. We ought to tidy up the law, and now that we have given that responsibility to school governors, we should allow them to do their job, and use this debate—the earliest opportunity since we last discussed the issue—to say that the House of Commons has made its position clear in previous votes and now believes that it is time to remove a pernicious piece of legislation that is an outdated anachronism.
Communities, if they are anything at all, are the development of society, and society has moved on greatly in recent years. A Government who lag behind as society moves on not only fail to show leadership but are not even in tune with the very people they represent. Here we are, debating a Bill about the representation of the people at local level, yet we are leaving with them this onerous task that they have never wanted to use, have never used, and are never likely to use. Is not this the right day, the right time and the right place to say that we will have no more of it? Let us allow local democratic accountability to be more meaningful. The measures in the Bill relating to changing voting systems, bringing together timings, and looking at how we relate to people and engage with the business community, local tenants' groups or council tax payers all relate to people who are
106
the parents of children who might be gay. They are the parents of children who are going to school and need to learn. They are the members of the community who are attending schools as governors. They are members of the local activist groups that engage in our community. These people are not split up into different salami slices for the purposes of one Act against another.
I feel encouraged by the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Minister. I hope that during our consideration of the Bill, the Government will accept a sensible amendment and that the House will develop a consensus. If there cannot be agreement on some aspects of what I have to say, let us at least agree, given what the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) has said, that section 28 is an anachronism. It is no longer needed. We have given the powers to somebody else. Let us allow that person to do the job that has come through the democratic process. Let us get rid of a pernicious piece of legislation during our consideration of the Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will accept my remarks.
8.36 pm
Sue Doughty: I return to the problem of clause 11, which heavily affects debt-free local authorities such as those in my constituency: Waverley and Guildford borough councils. We heard graphically about the problems of new towns from the hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett). I shall cover some of the housing problems in what are apparently hugely prosperous areas. However, there are people living in these areas who are certainly not prosperous.
It is easy to think that certain constituencies are part of the gin-and-jag belt. It is easy to dismiss their needs and say that somewhere such as Surrey generates wealth for the rest of the country. We do not deny that we are successful economically. We pay our taxes and contribute to the wealth of the country. We do what we can. We accept that redistribution is part of the great economics of the United Kingdom. That is the role that we play here.
There are some, however, who are not participating in the process. We have a need for social housing and council housing as well as those in the poorer parts of the country such as the south-west, the north-east and the north-west. We have areas of social deprivation. We do not have empty homes or houses going for a song. On our council list, we do not have three and four-bedroomed houses available for people as their families grow. It may take many years to get a council house in Guildford or Waverley. Such housing is likely to become available only if someone's needs are so desperate that he or she finally gets the points that take them to the top of the list. The idea that a decent low-income family will get a suitable house is a myth in the area that I represent.
It is a scant comfort to know that people in other parts of the country may benefit from the pooling of revenues when a shop assistant is trying to find somewhere in which he or she can afford to live with their family. What is the position of a bus driver who is trying to house his family? We do not have enough bus drivers because they cannot afford to live in the area that I represent. They cannot find anywhere.
Week after week, Members who represent constituencies in my part of the world have people coming to their surgeries who present heart-breaking

107
cases of desperation. For half the weekend, I had phone calls from a family who were again desperately in need of housing. There was abuse and all sorts of problems. They were almost losing the will to keep on trying to stay together as a family because of the lack of housing. They cannot move away.
What do I say to a couple in their late 20s—a nursery nurse and a gardener—who have never been able to move away from the family? The other siblings are still there. When the baby comes, they will have room for the crib in the house but there will not be room for a cot. What will that family do?
The average price of a house in Surrey is £250,000. Members will know that private houses for rent are affordable only to people with a large income. Private sector rents are high. Very few properties are available for less than £1,000 a month, and in the best areas, rents go up to £15,000 a month. I cannot tell constituents who come to me with problems to try the private sector—the houses are not there. The Government must recognise that we need our social housing and our council housing, and, above all, local authorities must be able to invest in those. We have problems with housing key workers and, in other schemes, those who do not even get to key worker level are desperately needy.
Mr. Swayne: Will the hon. Lady acknowledge that the problem is, at least in part, of the Government's making? New Forest district council wants to deploy more of its budget in building houses that are desperately needed, but it is prevented from doing so by a Whitehall-imposed policy that requires it to spend that money ripping out perfectly good kitchens and putting in new ones. Frankly, in the New Forest, the need for new houses is greater than the need for new kitchens, and such decisions should be made only by locally accountable politicians, not by Whitehall.
Sue Doughty: I agree that it is essential that councils can determine their housing needs and their strategies to ensure that they have adequately maintained housing stock. They should also be able to invest in new housing where necessary. That should be a local decision, not a national one.
When a constituent asks me, "What am I going to do with my three teenage children? We live in a two-bedroomed house, and by the way my husband has a mental illness, cannot stand the stress and is about to walk out," it is no good my replying, "Well, you shouldn't have had the children." The family, including the children, have needs. We must remember that there is housing need across the country, and it is not something that can be subsidised in one area by funds from another.
In Guildford, we have invested well in our housing stock and in maintenance. Maintenance has been paid for by rents, which are set so as to allow us to make that investment. Tenants invest in their own homes, and council tax payers invest in those homes. Properties built before the war have, over the years, received huge investment from local people and they are a local asset. Guildford has been prudent; it has been listed as above average in managing its housing by the Government
108
office for the south-east. However, if property is sold off under the right to buy, we could lose that money. We need to build more properties. We have £35 million in the bank from right-to-buy income, and we cannot invest it as we would like.
Clause 11 is unjust and unreasonable. Local government has to mean exactly that, and it must be locally run. I support everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said about the need for local government. Central Government have a role in allocating resources, but the notion that they can purloin a council's assets and give them to someone else is totally unacceptable.
On 18 July last year, the Deputy Prime Minister stressed that not only do we need more homes but more homes that people can afford. Councils work in many ways to develop affordable housing, but taking away their capital receipts is a way of preventing them from doing so. Councils such as Waverley need to be able to spend their receipts on meeting the decent homes standards. Waverley will struggle in that respect, and it needs that money. The council is patching up holes in woodwork instead of replacing windows.
The Government need to recognise our problems with our dwindling housing stock. They must recognise that not all high-cost areas are populated by affluent people. I spend a lot of time trying to explain the problems of the public sector and the pay and housing needs of its employees. There is a constant drain on the numbers of police officers, qualified teachers and experienced people away from the south-east, because they cannot afford to live here. The problem is even worse among lower paid people.
I urge the Government to rethink the clause. The towns and the countryside in the south-east need a balanced community, not only people who can afford to he here. It is essential that our communities have that balance, but the proposed pooling of receipts will not deliver it. The need for good housing across the country is not a party political issue—there is no logic in not housing bus drivers in the south-east so that we can house bus drivers in the north-west.
If the Government are not prepared to reconsider the clause, perhaps they will consider what councils want to do with the money and what investment they want to make. Before pooling the money, they could ask councils what they would otherwise do with it. Would councils use it to bring themselves up to a decent standard, and how many homes would they fail to provide if the Government took it away? If they are going to start putting controls on local government finance, they should use them constructively to encourage councils to invest as best they can in housing for people with the greatest need.
8.45 pm
Mr. Neil Turner: First, may I congratulate the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) on his bid for the 2003 brass neck award? He occupies the pole position in such a contest, and made a good job of getting off the starting blocks quickly.
I was a member of a local authority from 1979 to 1997. During that time, I recall only one Conservative Secretary of State introducing plans to reduce the

109
regulations on local government. After a lot of huffing and puffing and vanishing into the jungle, he introduced a number of proposals. In the 15 years during which I chaired Wigan council's highways council not once did I avail myself of the opportunity to introduce cattle grids in Wigan's roads without reference to the Secretary of State for the Environment—that was the sum of Conservative attempts to reduce the burden on local government. It is therefore a bit rich of the Opposition to start to complain now about a measure that does just that.
Kali Mountford: Did the scales fall from my hon. Friend's eyes, as they did from mine, when the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) told the House that such difficult legislation was imposed on local authorities at that time because of the Labour councillors he had to deal with? If he had not had to deal with them, he would not have introduced the legislation.
Mr. Turner: Certainly, scales fell from my eyes several times when previous local government Ministers spoke. The hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) and the right hon. Members for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) gave tremendous reasons for doing all sorts of things at the time. Now they come along and say that we are not doing enough to repeal measures that they introduced.
I want to deal with clauses 77 and 78, which deal with the extremely important matters of property revaluation and council tax banding. Revaluation is essential—nobody can be in any doubt that since 1991 there have been huge changes in property values, not just nationally, but within and between regions, so we must make sure that that is reflected in council tax bands. There is an extensive home ownership market in this country, and house values represent closely people's ability to pay for housing. If they can do so, they can pay for their council tax as well. A council tax band that does not accurately reflect the real value of a house will in the long term bring banding into disrepute.
Mr. McWalter: Does my hon. Friend agree that if band A is split into, say, band A1 and band A2, with A2 people paying the current band A and A1 people paying rather less, there will have to be compensation for the difference in revenue? It would therefore make sense to split band H at the other end.
Mr. Turner: I shall deal in a moment with banding and the splitting of bands. If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I shall finish the point that I was making about council tax valuation and the need to ensure that that is done at least every 10 years. Sophisticated information is available from the building societies and other bodies, which would allow us to revise house valuations on a more regular basis than that. Why can we not carry out a regional uplifting every year and a complete revaluation every 10 years to bring the two together? That would provide buoyancy for council tax income without the need to increase the council tax rate and levy each year, as those on the Liberal Front Bench suggested would be beneficial.
On the council tax ratios, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) pointed out forcefully the problems that we have in many areas of
110
the north-west. I am sure that his authority is similar to mine, where 70 to 75 per cent. of houses are in band A or band B. Of 120,000 properties in the Wigan borough we have 141 in band H. That shows the disparity that exists. We need to consider not merely splitting those bands, but introducing a more realistic ratio between the value of those bands and the amount of council tax that people pay. At present, someone living in a band A property worth £30,000 pays six ninths of the standard rate. Somebody with a property worth £300,000–10 times as much—or £400,000, £500,000 or £1 million will be in band H and will pay only twice the band D rate. In other words, somebody at the top of the scale will pay only three times as much as somebody at the bottom.
That cannot be right. It is hugely regressive, and there is no doubt that the reason why the Opposition do not want the introduction of new bands or the splitting of existing bands is that they prefer a regressive council tax to a progressive one. I hope that the Minister will make sure that we consider splitting the bottom range and that we introduce a number of new ranges at the top, so that through the bands and the ratio between them, the system reflects people's ability to pay.
Clauses 40 and 41 deal with housing finance. I was disappointed with this aspect of the Bill. It does not level the playing field between local authority housing and registered social landlords. Only by transferring from local authority housing to a registered social landlord will the overhanging debt be written off. That is the wrong way of using the available finance. It should be used for additional investment in housing, rather than paying off debt to transfer the ownership of those houses.
There may be good reasons for transferring housing ownership to registered social landlords and away from local authorities. The local authority may not be a particularly good landlord, and it should not be allowed to continue in those circumstances. However, we should recognise that there are dangers involved in transferring to registered social landlords. A registered social landlord usually has a fairly small number of properties, so only a small group of people can do that. Even so, in small district councils, the consequent reduction in the size of its housing department may represent a quarter or a third of the intellectual mass that goes into that local authority's corporate ability to deal with problems. That seriously diminishes such an authority's ability to take corporate actions to solve housing and other problems. In all good authorities, there is corporate accountability and local authority chief officers act together to discuss and resolve problems. If part of the intellectual mass is taken away, particularly in district councils, that limits their ability to tackle problems.
There is another issue relating to registered social landlords. People who live in social housing usually face a host of problems, including educational, social, financial and health problems. We are trying to create a system to ensure that all those problems are dealt with on a corporate and partnership basis. Taking away the housing aspect and giving it to a registered social landlord means taking away the ability of the local authority to control the issue directly and deal with it properly. The needs of tenants will be suborned to the needs of the registered social landlord's finances and other priorities. We must be very careful of that danger in the transferral to registered social landlords.

111
Clause 103 deals with voting on the same day in both the European and council elections. I welcome that and I can see why the Opposition have doubts about it. One of the major reasons why they had a better result than they might otherwise have achieved in the elections held in June 1999 was that they took place only one month after other elections and people had become tired of voting, so they voted with their feet by staying at home. Holding the two elections together will ensure that that does not happen, and I am sure that Opposition Members will he pleased to have properly elected members on the basis of a full ballot rather than a diminished one.
I hope that the Minister will take on board my concern about the fact that the Bill currently mentions only 2004. However, in 2009 and 2014 we will run into exactly the same problem, so I suggest that we consider amending the Bill in Committee to ensure that, after a debate in the House, the Secretary of State can move local elections to the same date as European elections or general elections, which sometimes happen at about the same time, without necessarily introducing another Bill.
Mr. Swayne: The hon. Gentleman suggested that we should change the system because my party did rather better last time and he wants it to work to his party's advantage. Will he not at least acknowledge that there are difficulties with voting in as many as four different voting systems on one day? Does that problem not occur to him at all?
Mr. Turner: I think that that is rather insulting to the electorate. The last general election took place on the same day as county council elections. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to suggest that people were so confused that they voted for parties for which they would not otherwise have voted merely because they had to vote in a county council and general election at the same time. There are difficulties, but most of them concern the counting of votes, their separation from different ballot boxes and the delay that that causes, rather than any problem that the electorate have in putting a cross on the appropriate ballot paper. We should consider some of the examples from abroad. For example, the American ballot paper often looks more like a toilet roll than a traditional English ballot paper. If the Americans can deal with that, I am sure that the British electorate can do so as well.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: How does the hon. Gentleman square the provisions to allow the elections to be held on the same day with the Welsh Assembly's postponement of the Welsh local elections from 2003 to 2004 so that they would not coincide with the main elections? How does he square those two events?
Mr. Turner: I shall not try to square anything that the Welsh do with anything that we do. I merely point out that it is entirely up to the Welsh to decide when they want to hold their elections, although I believe anything that applies to the British electorate as a whole could apply to the Welsh electorate. They might not wish to hold their elections at the same time, but that is a matter for them.
112
I welcome the Bill. It is not the sort of Bill that I would have wanted, as I would have liked it to go much further. Nevertheless, it makes a lot of very good proposals. Some of them are modest, but some are positive and some bold. Once it is enacted, I am sure that local councils will be much better able to serve the needs and meet the aspirations of their communities than they have been previously.
9 pm
Mr. Andrew Turner: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner), and I should like to begin by dealing with his final point concerning elections held on the same day. The reason why my election to this place was not announced until 2.30 on the Friday afternoon following the day of the general election was precisely because we were trying to hold three elections on the same day. [Interruption.] It does no harm to remind the House that my victory was indeed a Conservative gain.
The point about holding such elections on the same day is that they are elections about different things. Doing so means that people concentrate on different issues, because different campaigns will be waged on different issues. If possible, one wants to encourage an improvement in turnout by giving people information on a specific election. I did not notice the hon. Member for Wigan pointing out that there was a low turnout in the county council and general elections in 2001 because they were held on the same day. Perhaps that was entirely a coincidence.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: There is a more fundamental point. Elections are the fount of a democracy, and holding general, local government and European elections on the same day restricts the amount of discussion that could otherwise take place on them. Democracy is therefore diminished by holding such elections on the same day.
Mr. Turner: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but democracy is also diminished if Ministers and Governments seek to move elections for party political advantage. Indeed, that is an even more significant diminution of democracy.
Local government has been responsible for some of the best services—from the time of Chamberlain in Birmingham, to that of my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), who gave distinguished service to Wandsworth council. However, local government has also been responsible for some of the worst services. As a former parliamentary candidate for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, I had great opportunity to experience and observe the appalling quality of its local authority services. My last job before being elected to this House involved helping to sort out the failing local education authority in the London borough of Southwark. I doubt whether many Conservative Members have done that job—that is probably better for the borough of Southwark—but I did. There were problems in that authority not because the officers were poor—in fact, there were many very good middle-management officers—but because they were unable to exercise the control and discretion that would have been good for the delivery of education in that borough. In part,

113
they were prevented from doing so by excessive political intervention, but also by excessive, sustained and continually changing Government intervention. I have to say that such intervention began with the Government whom I supported, and it has continued with the Government whom I did not support.
Local government is not the creature of Government, but it is and remains inescapably the creature of this Parliament, so there are some things on which Parliament is entitled to pronounce. For example, it is entitled to limit the ability of local councils to trade at the expense of, and in competition with, the business rate payers who operate in the local areas. However, Parliament should be able to set a limit on only a restricted number of matters. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House will undoubtedly agree that local government needs greater stability of regulation, which would ensure greater responsibility on the part of local authorities. Greater responsibility itself engenders, and entitles local authorities to exercise, greater autonomy. The more we can stabilise the systems of local government finance and regulation, the better the public will understand them. People will therefore be better able to exercise their discretion at the ballot box, on the day of the European elections or otherwise.
I hope that we will move towards a more transparent local government system that everyone understands. The least transparent part of the present system for electors is the annual finance settlement. The Minister for Local Government and the Regions is not in his place, but I thank him for agreeing to see a delegation from the Isle of Wight authority next Tuesday. On 18 December, he stated that the local government settlement for the Isle of Wight took account of my area's special circumstances. I hope that he will be able to convince councillors from all parties in my constituency that that is the case. It might help if he were to let them know in advance exactly how the specific needs of the area are taken into account. I asked him whether the settlement took account of the cost of delivering statutory services on an island. I know of no reference to those costs in the local government settlement, but I am prepared to be convinced.
The Bill gives many additional discretions to the Secretary of State, rather than to local authorities. One such is contained in clause 31, and in clauses 36 to 42—the ability to make grants unconstrained by any regulation by this House, or by any resolution of this House. Indeed, that ability is unconstrained by anything but the wording of the Bill. It may not be what Ministers intend, but that is an invitation to pork barrel politics.
Mr. Mole: Would the hon. Gentleman welcome the use by the Secretary of State of one of these powers to award a specific grant to authorities that exist on islands?
Mr. Turner: Of course, but I should prefer the Secretary of State to place in regulation objective criteria according to which such grants would be made available. Those criteria could then be discussed by this House. The point is that such criteria must be objective and transparent, and able to be scrutinised by the House.
I shall give the House an example. It comes from the Department for Education and Skills, but is none the worse for that. It is one of 12 different schemes by which
114
that Department gives money to local education authorities. One third of all LEAs do not benefit from any of those schemes. They are not distinguished by being suburban authorities as opposed to shire county authorities, nor by their prosperity or their super-duper results. That is because so few objective criteria are set out for the distribution of the grants.
I shall refer to the criteria set out by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for the allocation of "diversity pathfinder" grants. The first criterion is that the LEAs involved should have "a good track record", but that is not defined. The second is that they should be "innovative" in their approach, but no objective measurement of "innovative" is supplied. I accept that the third criterion—that the LEAs should have good Ofsted reports—is objective. The fourth criterion is that the LEAs should be a mix of rural and urban areas, but in what proportion is not specified. The fifth is that the LEAs should have
"demonstrated good change management strategies in the past",
but when in the past is not specified. The final requirement is that the benefiting LEAs should have implemented
"strategies to develop the specialist schools model."
That criterion is modestly objective. The money went to Birmingham, Middlesbrough, Cornwall, Hertfordshire, Newham, Portsmouth, Essex, Wigan, Medway, Leeds and Tower Hamlets. That is good for them, but poor for the other LEAs, and especially for the one third of LEAs that received no money at all because of the lack of objective criteria to govern the distribution of the grants. What criteria there were could not be scrutinised by the House.
If the Minister for Local Government and the Regions is to take the power to allocate money in that way, I hope that he will set out objective criteria. I acknowledge the fact that he said earlier that there will be clear criteria and that they will be scrutinised objectively—excellent, but does he mean that they will be scrutinised by the House? That is what is needed.
I shall move on to other aspects of the grant and council tax arrangements. I welcome the proposed changes to the second homes rebate. I have always thought it curious that there is so much objection to the second homes rebate at local council level because it is, in fact, a subsidy from the national taxpayer to those who are fortunate enough to own second homes, but it is no more justifiable for that. I wonder why it is necessary to retain a 10 per cent. mandatory minimum payment for second homes, or maximum payment— [Interruption] —I not sure which it is.
I welcome the changes to the empty property rebate. I ask that local councils should be able to keep that element of rebate as well, but I question clause 76, which will give billing authorities the power to reduce the tax payable for any class of council tax payer. Is that not a curious power to give to local authorities? It is one thing to say that they should acknowledge when someone has gone bankrupt and cannot afford to pay the tax, but to say in advance that the council tax payer or a class of council tax payer need not pay anything—again, without objective criteria—seems particularly difficult to justify. I hope that the Minister will justify that clearly if he attempts to do so, and I am sure that, if I am wrong, he will tell me clearly as well.

115
A final element of council tax that causes a great feeling of injustice, although possibly less injustice than a feeling of injustice, is so-called dual taxation. In fact, it is the non-taxation of non-parish, as compared to parished areas, in rural authorities. There is a feeling of injustice where a local authority provides a service in the non-parished area but expects the parish and town councils to pay for that service at the cost of the parish and town council tax payers in the parished areas. Of course the taxpayers in the parished areas are contributing to the cost of providing the service not only in their area, but in the non-parished areas through their local authority council tax. Although local authorities have the discretion to add an element to the council tax in the non-parish areas, they have no obligation to do so, and it may be appropriate to impose that obligation in the interests of fairness.
I should like to discuss briefly issues relating to the new council structures. I doubt very much whether the new council structures are any better than the old ones, but the fact is that we have got them. I wonder whether we should examine how effective scrutiny committees are, especially in local authorities where one party has the majority on every scrutiny committee and the chairmanships of those committees are held by members of the party that forms the majority on that local authority. That happens in my local authority, and it is felt that scrutiny in such local authorities is not of such high quality as it is in those areas where there is a diversity of chairmanship and perhaps a greater diversity of membership on those committees.
My last point but one relates to the creation of local partnerships and community forums. I am concerned that local authorities are handing over powers and cash to local partnerships and community forums, which are allowed to meet in private. It is a long time since, I think, my noble friend Baroness Thatcher introduced the legislation that required local authority committees to meet in public. Many of the responsibilities are now being passed to community forums, which are meeting behind closed doors. That seems to be a means of evading some of the responsibilities of parish and town councils.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley spoke of the Bill interfering in the setting of rents by local authorities and rents for social housing. I hope that the Minister will examine this issue. In my constituency, the maximum rent set by his Department, through the Housing Corporation, for new social housing is so low that it cannot pay enough to construct a decent house. It is as simple as that. Construction costs are high on the island, although housing values are low relative to the rest of the south-east. The amount of money that our housing associations are allowed to charge in rent is inadequate to support the cost of constructing a decent house. I hope that Ministers will be prepared to address that issue in this Bill or elsewhere.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) described the Bill as itty-bitty. It is itty-bitty because it contains quite a lot of new regulation and very small elements of freedom. In fact, the elements of freedom are so small that they might be
116
described as itsy-bitsy bits—itsy-bitsy and teeny-weeny. I wish that there were more, and I hope that we can improve the Bill in Committee.
9.16 pm
Mr. Tony McWalter: It is a privilege to be the last to speak in this excellent and wide-ranging debate, which shows that we need a Local Government Bill. My reaction to the Bill is that although it contains some welcome improvements to the administration of local government, it is essentially an opportunity missed. As the Bill relates to my constituency, I wish to reiterate some of the points made much earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett), who also represents a Hertfordshire new town. She handled the matter with great good humour and reflection, but I am more inclined to foam at the mouth and go ballistic, although I shall try to avoid that on this occasion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) talked about how the Government have displayed what he termed rather gently, as an ex-Minister, an insensitive analysis of local problems. I would put it more strongly: local government has been the Government's Achilles heel. We want delivery of a huge range of policies. We have shown great imagination and determination, and we have been willing to brook policies that might be unpopular in the short term for the greater benefit of our population and our country in the longer term. Those policies, of course, need delivery. The agents of delivery, for policy after policy, must be local government. The misery endured by communities when they are terrorised by young thugs requires the implementation of antisocial behaviour orders through a co-operative arrangement between the police and the local authority. The abandoned car that drags a neighbourhood down to the point that the elderly are frightened to walk the streets must be removed by the local authority.
In my constituency, an extraordinarily large demand exists for social services, not least because Hertfordshire grew up as the place where people in London dumped their mentally defective relatives. Hertfordshire had a huge number of mental hospitals, but, in the aftermath of the misnamed care in the community policy, those individuals were pushed out, many of them bereft of any kind of help. Hertfordshire has a huge problem with its social services budget even now. The number of people with mental health difficulties in the county is very high, and the local authority has to support their needs.
We all encounter road safety issues. The other day I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport about the problem faced by one of my constituents who does not have a car—I did not give the details—and who used local transport to visit a relative in a residential home. It took three buses two hours and 40 minutes to travel seven miles. Leafy Hertfordshire may be all right in some respects and it may share some of the qualities that Guildford has and that were described earlier—but people's needs are the same everywhere in the country and local authorities have an extraordinary responsibility to deliver the policies that will help. When I consider a Bill that says that it will remove millions of pounds from my community, my heart sinks.

117
Hemel Hempstead is very used to being deprived of resources by central Government. It was set up as a new town in 1947, and I talked to an 87-year-old lady the other day who remembered coming there from the east end of London. She confessed that she kept coal in the bath and that she was not the only one to do so.
Dr. Iddon: They still do in Wigan.
Mr. McWalter: My hon. Friend suggests that they still do that in Wigan. That is an interesting aside.
People moved to an extraordinary place and had never seen such houses and fields before. When the town was established, central Government came along as Santa Claus but did they say, "Here is a resource. Now look after it and manage it."? Did they heck. They said that they would set up a quango—the Commission for the New Towns—and would make damn sure that all the gifts that they had given the town would be looked after very carefully. It is a hit like Santa Claus bringing us presents and making sure that we play with them in exactly the right way. If one of the presents begins to have a higher value than it did originally, he wrenches it back. The Commission for the New Towns ensured that the land that it had enriched by developing it would repatriate funds by the million to the Treasury. That still goes on, but now under the name of English Partnerships. Recent welcome changes by the Government have made English Partnerships a bit less like the Commission for the New Towns and a bit more like a body that is trying to work with the community to create a better life for people.
For nearly 60 years, funds have been pulled away from our community at every hand's turn. What does that mean? Go to Hemel Hempstead library in leafy Hertfordshire; like most of the other public buildings in the town, it has a flat roof, and we heard about them earlier. The best thing that could be done to the local college would be to raze it to the ground and flatten it. However, that has already been done to the only facility other than the pubs that provided young people with somewhere to go in Hemel Hempstead town centre in the evening. The place where the local theatre and dance clubs used to meet has been razed to the ground. It was built totally ineptly in 1960 and cost £500,000 a year to run. The local authority said that it could not afford it and so knocked it to the floor a couple of months ago.
The local authority fears the Bill and what it means for its finances. It is right to do so. Clause 90 talks about negative subsidy. Most Members have not had to do much about that issue, but if they go to the Library and ask for the negative subsidy handbook they will find in it many of my speeches. That is probably not a recommendation, but I have had to become involved with the issue of negative subsidy. Clause 90 in its old form would have meant £10 million a year being taken away from my local authority, which has a standard spending assessment of £12 million. I had to negotiate with the then Minister for local government so that the Government would give it £500,000 a year each year. I am now told that no local authority will lose out, but we will.
Not much has been said about needs, although we used to talk about them all the time in local authority lingo. The rate support grant used to be based on needs
118
and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West mentioned them in his welcome contribution. If the people in my constituency were living in clover and their needs were being addressed, the Government's request to take £3.5 million from us this year in negative subsidy would be acceptable. I would say, "Take it. Put it to use for the people who put the coal in the tub in Wigan", although I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) accepts that there are any.
Mr. Neil Turner: We will take the £3.5 million.
Mr. McWalter: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I cannot say that. The public sector buildings form the core of my constituency, but we should be ashamed to ask people to use them for their cultural and leisure activities. In fact, there are hardly any facilities. The library would not grace a town of 10,000 people let alone 80,000. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage emphasised, the infrastructure is rotting at the core. We have asbestos-ridden buildings that need an enormous amount of attention. I do not want money to disappear until I am assured that those who have plans to use it effectively to address needs will be given the opportunity to do so. Clause 90 will have an important effect on my constituency. I hope that I am put on the Committee to argue my case at greater length and to defeat the clause, although I suspect that in light of my comments that will not happen.
All hon. Members mentioned clause 11 and capital receipts. I commend what my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage said. Many of the assets in new towns which accumulated through capital receipts were deemed to be housing receipts when they were in fact just land. The problem arose because they were denominated housing land in the initial formulation of the new town. However, we cannot use housing receipts for non-housing. The biggest need in my constituency and many others is housing. By the way, we have nowhere to put homeless people. They are either put in a church overnight at Christmas or they go to St. Albans.
Affordable housing is a problem. The hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) asked where the bus driver lives. If there is nowhere for him to live, the bus service is lousy because there are not enough drivers to run a service that allows the people who need buses to get around by them. That is a basic element of life. The nurse shortage in London is 6 per cent. and patients suffer badly as a result. In leafy Hertfordshire, it is 8.2 per cent. According to the explanatory notes, my local authority is one of the richer authorities and will be required to redistribute its funds. Under the definition, Dacorum borough council in my area is the richest authority in the country. Its standard spending assessment is £12.4 million and last year it spent more than £20 million. It is debt free, so it is rich. However, it does not use that money to keep the rates low—they are fully consistent with those of other boroughs. It uses the money to make up the deficiencies that Hertfordshire county council is unable to meet. When I wanted my mental health team to get £10,000, I went to Dacorum borough council. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West spoke of a vision of how local authorities could be—my local authority has been like that, but it is

119
being stripped away, piece by piece. It can no longer make up for the deficiencies of Hertfordshire county council.
This is a welcome Bill, which contains many good provisions, but we need to empower local authorities and move away from the arrogant belief that things need to be run from the centre because local authorities cannot do it. It is time to ditch that attitude once and for all.
9.31 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: This has been a wide-ranging, constructive and good-tempered debate. The only issue on which I agree with the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter), whom I am pleased to follow, is that the Bill is an opportunity missed. It could have included so many good things to strengthen local government and devolve power to the lowest possible level. Instead we have the reverse: a highly centralising Bill that gives huge powers to the Secretary of State and introduces 34 order-making powers by secondary legislation.
We heard some excellent speeches, particularly from some very experienced right hon. and hon. Friends. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) made an excellent speech—I did so agree with what he said about pooling capital receipts. His council is similar to mine in many respects, and had my council not been able to make a large-scale voluntary transfer of 500 houses and spend the interest on the receipts, it would have not been able to build 400 new affordable houses in the past four years. If the Secretary of State insists on the pooling of capital receipts, I suspect, as many right hon. and hon. Members have said, that we will not see so many affordable houses built with the proceeds from large-scale voluntary transfer. The only crumb of comfort is that the provision will apply only to capital housing receipts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) is another colleague with extensive local government experience. I particularly agreed with his comments about the restrictions on local authorities' prudential borrowings regime. How will they be able to operate CIPFA's draft code if they do not know what grant they are likely to be given by the Government in future years?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) also made an excellent speech. He made some very interesting points that I should have thought would appeal to Labour Members, if they were listening, about the interaction between the voluntary, public and private sectors—an extremely important point that will be one of the main political issues in the next year. I am not sure that the Bill does a huge amount to encourage that interaction. My right hon. Friend described the Bill as a small earthquake in Walsall, and I think that he was probably right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) used his experience to point out some of the deficiencies in the BIDs regime proposed in the Bill. He said that it is an American concept, but that the difference between these proposals and those in
120
America is that in this country it is mostly the tenants who pay non-domestic rates, whereas in America it is the landowners. Landowners in this country, of course, will benefit largely from the BIDs proposals. Bizarrely, tenants who pay non-domestic rates might vote for a scheme from which landlords might benefit. We must look at those proposals carefully in Committee.
We heard an excellent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), who made his usual special pleading for the island. He is right that his is the largest constituency in this country, and it has specific problems. He correctly focused on the proposal to pay specific grants wholly at the Secretary of State's behest. Conservative Members believe that we should move away from specific and special grants and give local authorities more discretion over how they spend their money through the rate support grant mechanism.
This huge Bill has 123 clauses and seven schedules, yet the Government propose a timetable with just 12 Committee sittings. Members should compare that with the fact that the considerably smaller and less complex Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill has also been given 12 sittings. I appeal to the Minister across the Dispatch Boxes and in a non-partisan way: we still have time before the Bill is debated in Committee to consider, through the usual channels, giving it more than 12 sittings.
I am sure that the Minister wants, as I do, to ensure that all colleagues in local government feel that the Bill has received proper scrutiny in this place. That is all the more pertinent as he has announced today a completely new proposal to amend section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947, which we welcome. We look forward to seeing the detail. The proposal accords with Professor Bain's report, so we shall consider it and we hope to give it a fair wind in Committee, but that will not take five minutes.
We have also been told by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) that section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986 is to be amended. If that is so, no doubt it will take up further time in Committee. Therefore, I say to the Minister and the usual channels that the time allocated for consideration in Committee is not adequate.
Mr. Swayne: It is an outrage.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: As my hon. Friend says, it is an outrage. I hope that we can consider the matter before the Bill reaches Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley made pertinent remarks on the prudential borrowing regime and the reserves included in the Bill. Those matters are complex and they need careful examination in Committee. He also made the point that we are swapping one regime for another—the permission to borrow for the new capital and special grants scheme. We need to consider that carefully to see whether we are not just making a huge nutcracker to crack a very small nut represented by bad councils such as Hackney and North Tyneside, which the Minister mentioned.
My hon. Friends have referred to the pooling of capital receipts as well as the fact that the Minister is taking to himself some draconian powers to deem that such receipts have been received and to direct how they

121
should be pooled for other, less efficient councils. Members on both sides of the House, particularly those representing new towns such as Hemel Hempstead, have criticised the Minister over those proposals, so we must consider the matter very carefully.
Indeed, some while ago in a reply to a parliamentary question, the Minister told me that the proposal is aimed at encouraging debt-free authorities to take up their borrowing allowances. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) made the point that there are 48 debt-free authorities in this country. Some may have achieved that status through good fortune or the assets that they have been able to sell, but I put it to the Minister that most have achieved debt-free status through good management. Some councils have managed their affairs prudently for many years, which has enabled them to become debt free, so forcing them to borrow is draconian step. I ask him to consider that very carefully.
The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy drew up the draft code on prudential borrowing, which has been refined from that which was originally proposed. Here, the whole House owes a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) and to the Select Committee, which has worked on the Bill and made some pertinent criticisms. Through his Committee, the hon. Gentleman is achieving a considerable reputation for the thorough scrutiny of draft Bills according to the short timetables set by the Government. The Bill was published only on 21 November, so it was a commendable achievement to come up with such a substantive report in the time available.
The Government should take note of that point. There is no earthly reason why Bills should be rushed through in such a way. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill is being rushed through in exactly the same way. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) made the highly pertinent point that if there are 34 order-making powers in the Local Government Bill, we want to see draft copies well before we reach the relevant stage in Committee so that we can table appropriate amendments.
if we cannot do that, it will be an abrogation of democracy and neither the House or the Standing Committee will be able to do their jobs properly. For all of us who want to uphold the reputation of the House, those procedures are bad practice and I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will take note of our comments and ensure that Bills are not rushed through in future.
Andrew Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that he should be congratulating the Government? The promise about regulations is firm. Will he promise us that the list of all the local government regulations that the Opposition want to get rid of will also be available by the same date?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: It is the Government who are making the proposals; it is the Opposition's job to scrutinise them, not to offer alternatives. If the hon. Gentleman serves on the Standing Committee—I hope that he will, given his knowledge—I can give him the categoric assurance that we shall scrutinise the
122
proposals with all the vigour that we can muster. What we lack in numbers, we certainly make up for in intellectual argument, rigour and vigour—[Interruption.] We can all get excited about that, but the Bill includes other important proposals and if I do not deal with one or two of them I shall not have properly summed up the measure.
Much comment has been made about the proposal that the elections for the European Parliament and the local government and London Assembly elections should be held on the same date in 2004, even though they are all subject to different election regimes—as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar pointed out. The proposal amounts to gerrymandering; altering the dates of elections sets an unfortunate precedent. Elections are set for certain dates for good reason, so that people have a proper time to carry out their mandate, whether for central or local government. It is an abrogation of democracy to gerrymander the dates in such a way.
The latter part of the Bill deals with trading and local authorities. The proposals that local authorities should be involved in trading will set a difficult precedent, unless they are carefully constrained. To allow local authorities to set up trading companies would evade prudential borrowing regimes and other regimes. The Minister referred to the matter in his opening speech, but when the Under-Secretary sums up will he assure us that he will make doubly certain that such companies will be subject to resource accounting? As the Minister will know, that means that they have to make a proper return not just on revenue but on all capital assets employed—on all the property that they employ. The Opposition will be scrutinising that point carefully in Committee, because the powers to trade could distort competition, which is a cause of real concern.
I do not see why a local authority should trade in any service that is not included in its normal delivery pattern. As the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) pointed out—although he is not listening to the debate because he is talking to his colleague—if one was to sell double glazing just because there was a particular double glazing firm in one's constituency, it would set an extremely difficult precedent indeed and I caution the Government—
Mr. Edward Davey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: No, I will not. I have only one minute in which to sum up.
To sum up, Mr. Deputy Speaker—Mr. Speaker, I do beg your pardon! Happy new year!—this is a highly centralising Bill that will introduce redistribution on a grand scale: redistribution of housing receipts, housing revenue accounts, and rent limitation subsidies. Indeed, it will set rents in the public sector for the future in this country. The Bill gives the Secretary of State huge order-making powers. We will oppose it root and branch and we will seek to amend it in Committee with all the vigour that we can.
9.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Christopher Leslie): It gives me great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for

123
Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) in summing up this debate. I certainly agree with him on one issue at least: I also wish you a happy new year, Mr. Speaker.
The relationship between central and local government is at a crucial juncture, and it is entirely proper for the Government to help to ensure that all communities have their right to decent local services fulfilled. It is also right, however, that Whitehall should begin to have more faith in local councils to deliver quality local services. We need to put more trust in local government to do the right thing, and the Bill takes us further forward in that regard. Relations between local and central Government are improving, power is being devolved, and more freedoms and local responsibilities are being given to councils.
The Bill proposes that unnecessary controls and regulations should be replaced with a more appropriate, targeted approach, recognising and rewarding the best-performing councils and encouraging improvements in others. The Bill is designed to help local government to be more responsive to local needs and local pressures—precisely the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) in his excellent contribution earlier. I am pleased to say that the Local Government Association has welcomed the Bill, and the significant new freedoms that it contains. The Welsh Assembly also supports the specific clauses relating to Wales. The Bill is a key ingredient in our wider policy approach, and, of course, needs to be looked at in the wider context of the White Paper and of other changes that we have made to devolve power, raise standards, invest more, increase funding and give greater freedoms and flexibilities to local government.
At the outset, I would like to say a brief word about the fire service, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions mentioned earlier. The fire service is a local government service, and, in the light of the publication of the independent review of the service under the stewardship of Sir George Bain, the Government are determined to press ahead with changes in line with the principles that he set out. The fire service needs modernisation, but fire chiefs are often hampered in making changes by antiquated requirements to get the Secretary of State's permission, as set out in section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947. Fire chiefs need to be given more freedom to manage and to modernise, so the Government will repeal the relevant parts of section 19 to help local chief fire officers to implement a risk-based approach to fire cover. The Fire Brigades Union has today tried to paint that change as the removal of the right of the public to be consulted. Nothing could be further from the truth. Chief fire officers and fire authorities will want to involve the local community in shaping their fire and rescue services, but there is no longer any need for every dot and comma to go through the Whitehall machine. Reform and modernisation have to proceed.
There are many detailed provisions in the Bill, but it will be impossible for me to go through every one of them in the time available. Many hon. Members talked about the provisions relating to council tax reform, and the Liberal Democrats—in the shape of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey)—now want to scrap council tax altogether. Perhaps we will
124
hear a little more in Committee about what they intend to replace it with, although I suspect that they are less clear on that. The proposals to give councils the power to reduce the second home discount to 10 per cent., to reduce or remove the empty homes discount and to introduce other council tax discounts have been welcomed. I realise that they have been opposed, in part, by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), but they have been welcomed in other ways by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). We shall have to see which of those hon. Members gets on to the Committee.
Few Members mentioned the exemption for students from joint and several liability for council tax, although many students in further and higher education will welcome that provision. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton welcomed as sensible the introduction of the new statutory revaluation cycle, to take place every 10 years. Many hon. Members took note of the new power to change the number of valuation bands. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) did not want this, but I believe that it may be necessary to improve fairness and the level of progressiveness in the council tax system. We have not made decisions on that yet, but it makes sense at this stage to take the position that we have adopted. My hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) and for Wigan (Mr. Turner) have rightly pointed out the economic realities. Some people feel that they are being penalised by the low value of their homes, with band A being too wide. I am pleased that at least we have the support of the Liberal Democrats in that regard.
There are many changes relating to business rates. Very few Members went through them, so I shall not dwell on them too much. However. I believe that they are necessary and administratively sensible.
Many Members referred to housing capital receipts. In particular, the pooling arrangements have been criticised and questioned. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton and the right hon. Members for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) were worried about the provisions. They were queried too by my hon. Friends the Members for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) and for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter). I shall make three points. First, clause 11 applies only to housing receipts, not to other capital receipts. Secondly, it is principally right-to-buy receipts that will be pooled alone. It is—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Cotswold should listen to this because he was incorrect on this matter earlier. It is not stock transfer—large-scale voluntary transfer receipts—that will be involved in the pooling. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire was also incorrect on that matter. The receipts did not accrue, therefore, as a result of prudent debt management, but as the result of individual decisions of householders to buy their properties. It is not a question of penalising prudent authorities. It is principally right-to-buy receipts that will be pooled.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: In his clarification mode, will the Minister clarify the matter further? Can he confirm that there will be no element of retrospectivity and that there will be receipts only after the Bill receives Royal Assent?

125
Can he confirm also that there will be no element of pooling of clawback from previous sales—that is, uplift in value and clawback from previous sales?
Mr. Leslie: I am happy to be able to confirm those points. However, I shall go further and say that I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be persuaded that the principle of pooling is the right approach to take. It is the fairest approach to ensure that we treat equally all authorities throughout the country and spend on the basis of need, bearing in mind especially deprivation and disadvantage.
We have increased spending on housing by more than two and a half times. It is precisely to tackle the issues raised by the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) that we need to ensure that investment in housing is made on the basis of need for social purposes.
The hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) rather peculiarly attacked clauses 101 and 102, which are designed to protect employees of local authorities where contracting out is to be conducted on the basis of staff transfers on preserved terms and conditions unless there are exceptional circumstances, and where transferees are to be offered either retention of their local government pension scheme or a broadly comparable scheme. I believe that it is important to institute a measure of protection for local government employees. I am glad that the Bill contains such provisions.
There are important provisions that relate to better accounting and financial management practices. For example, we will ensure that we have a prudent level of reserves set in local authorities. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton opposed these provisions. However, there are some extreme cases—for example, Hackney, Walsall and others—that we cannot ignore. We need to have a safeguard against some of the more extreme eventualities. I am concerned that the Liberal Democrats are perhaps looking slightly reckless and imprudent. None of us would want that, would we?
It is important also that the provisions to ensure that councils monitor their own budgetary performance are approved. That is not about intervention but simply about following good practice. I believe that when these matters are considered in Committee, Members will come to realise that point. There are many other technical provisions about resource accounting in terms of the housing revenue account. I believe that we are taking an equitable approach. It is simply an accounting change. The financial position of authorities will not be affected.
My hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish, for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) and for Bedford (Mr. Hall), the hon. Members for Cities of London and Westminster and for Kingston and Surbiton and others, dwelt on the provisions relating to business improvement districts. I am pleased to have their support. The official Opposition oppose the measures, despite the fact that the Confederation of British Industry has given them its full support. BIDs will create partnerships between businesses and local councils, which will work together to improve their area. I heard the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, and there are safeguards in the provisions. There is a double lock on the vote because there is a
126
requirement not only for a simple majority but for one based on the aggregate rateable value. That is very important. The nature of the activities of the business improvement district and the levy must be set out before the vote.
Mr. John Butterfill: Will the Minister confirm that the change in the arrangements for transitional relief on business rates will mean that the Treasury grant, which was over £300 million last year, will now be withdrawn? Does he agree with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors that the measure will penalise the poorest areas and those where values are falling?
Mr. Leslie: We certainly intend revenue neutrality in the transitional arrangements. Obviously, arrangements for the revaluation of business rates have existed for much longer than those for council tax, which has not gone through a revaluation process. We can consider those provisions in more detail in Committee.
The power to make grants to councils for any purpose has been criticised, in particular by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). However, the Local Government Association has welcomed the measure as providing freedom and flexibility. Indeed, the hon. Member for Cotswold welcomed our intention to move away from special grants. The current arrangements are too restrictive on local government because special grant reports are not amendable. Treasury consent will still be required of course, and parliamentary accountability can still be exercised in the normal way via the scrutiny of departmental votes and estimates. That, I believe, is quite sufficient and answers the point made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight.
I am surprised that the hon. Member for Cotswold and the Conservatives now so vociferously oppose even looking at the combination of local government elections and European elections in 2004. I would not want to ascribe to them any malign motivation concerning that not being to their party political advantage. I am sure that that has nothing to do with their stance. Their belief that electors cannot handle a combined poll displays a patronising attitude to the general public. The electorate are capable of doing more than one thing at a time, and the Conservatives should have more faith in them.
There are many new freedoms and flexibilities in the Bill, too many to mention. I shall refer to only a couple. The first is the trading freedoms. In Committee, we can discuss the assurances that the hon. Member for Cotswold sought on charging for discretionary services. There are also freedoms in the new prudential borrowing regime, which does not require Government consent. The Opposition criticised the fact that there is a reserve power, but we need that to protect the national economic interest and to prevent unreasonable or reckless debt in exceptional circumstances. In any case, the Conservatives never gave any such freedoms to councils.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) were keen to raise section 28. I confirm that the Government will support a suitable amendment to repeal that measure that is compatible with our

127
manifesto commitment, and I look forward to debating that with my hon. Friend and all hon. Members, even if they are from the other side of the House.
Before the hon. Member for Cotswold got to his feet, I was worried that he would get carried away, and indeed he did. It is very sad. The Conservatives have a history of poor policy in local government, and he needs reminding of that. From 1979, they imposed a whole range of outrageous and regressive measures on local government. They gave the Secretary of State control of spending and introduced rate capping. They abolished the Greater London council and six metropolitan county councils.
The Conservatives introduced compulsory competitive tendering, and who can forget their introduction of section 28? Who can forget the ever popular poll tax? They set aside capital receipts. That was a dark period for local government. The Labour Government changed all that, and the Bill builds on those foundations. The Opposition will fool no one with their lack of grasp; they are out of ideas and out of control, and they will be staying out of power for a lot longer. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 141, Noes 370.

Division No. 38]

[9:59 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Dodds, Nigel

Amess, David

Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

Ancram, rh Michael

Dorrell, rh Stephen

Arbuthnot, rh James

Duncan Smith, rh lain

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Evans, Nigel

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Fabricant, Michael

Bacon, Richard

Fallon, Michael

Baldry, Tony

Field, Mark (Cities of London &

Barker, Gregory

Westminster)

Baron, John (Billericay)

Flight, Howard

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Flook, Adrian

Bellingham, Henry

Fox, Dr. Liam

Bercow, John

Francois, Mark

Beresford, Sir Paul

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Blunt, Crispin

Garnier, Edward

Boswell, Tim

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

Goodman, Paul

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Brady, Graham

Grayling, Chris

Brazier, Julian

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Greenway, John

Burns, Simon

Grieve, Dominic

Burnside, David

Gummer, rh John

Burt, Alistair

Hague, rh William

Butterfill, John

Hammond, Philip

Cameron, David

Hawkins, Nick

Cash, William

Heald, Oliver

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Hermon, Lady

Chope, Christopher

Hogg, rh Douglas

Clappison, James

Horam, John (Orpington)

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hunter, Andrew

Collins, Tim

Jack, rh Michael

Conway, Derek

Jenkin, Bernard

Curry, rh David

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Djanogly, Jonathan

Lansley, Andrew

128

Letwin, rh Oliver

Simmonds, Mark

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

Liddell-Grainger, lan

Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

Lidington, David

Soames, Nicholas

Lilley, rh Peter

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Luff, Peter (M- Worcs)

Spicer, Sir Michael

Mclntosh, Miss Anne

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

MacKay, rh Andrew

Spring, Richard

Maclean, rh David

Stanley, rh Sir John

McLoughlin, Patrick

Streeter, Gary

Maples, John

Swayne, Desmond

Maude, rh Francis

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

May, Mrs Theresa

Syms, Robert

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Coldfield)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Tredinnick, David

Norman, Archie

Trend, Michael

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Ottaway, Richard

Tyrie, Andrew

Page, Richard

Viggers, Peter

Paice, James

Walter, Robert

Paterson, Owen

Waterson, Nigel

Pickles, Eric

Watkinson, Angela

Portillo, rh Michael

Whittingdale, John

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Randall, John

Wiggin, Bill

Redwood, rh John

Willetts, David

Robathan, Andrew

Wilshire, David

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

Winterton, Sir Nicholas

M-Kent)

(Macclesfield)

Rosindell, Andrew

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Ruffley, David

Young, rh Sir George

Sayeed, Jonathan

Selous, Andrew

Tellers for the Ayes:

Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

Mr. Laurence Robertson and

Shepherd, Richard

Mr. Mark Hoban

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Breed, Colin

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Brennan, Kevin

Ainger, Nick

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

Alexander, Douglas

Wallsend)

Allan, Richard

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Allen, Graham

Bruce, Malcolm

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Bryant, Chris

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

Buck, Ms Karen

Darwen)

Burden, Richard

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Burgon, Colin

Atherton, Ms Candy

Burnett, John

Atkins, Charlotte

Burnham, Andy

Bailey, Adrian

Burstow, Paul

Baird, Vera

Byers, rh Stephen

Barnes, Harry

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Barrett, John

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Barron, rh Kevin

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Battle, John

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Bayley, Hugh

Caplin, lvor

Beard, Nigel

Carmichael, Alistair

Beckett, rh Margaret

Casale, Roger

Begg, Miss Anne

Caton, Martin

Beith, rh A. J.

Cawsey, lan (Brigg)

Benn, Hilary

Challen, Colin

Bennett, Andrew

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Chaytor, David

Berry, Roger

Chidgey, David

Best, Harold

Clapham, Michael

Blackman, Liz

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

Blizzard, Bob

Pentlands)

Blunkett, rh David

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Borrow, David

Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Chryston)

Bradshaw, Ben

Clelland, David

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

129

Coaker, Vernon

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Colman, Tony

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Connarty, Michael

Hancock, Mike

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Hanson, David

Corbyn, Jeremy

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

Corston, Jean

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

Cousins, Jim

Abingdon)

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Cranston, hon. Ross

Harvey, Nick

Crausby, David

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

Cruddas, Jon

Rhymney)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Healey, John

Cummings, John

Heath, David

Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

Hendrick, Mark

(Copeland)

Hepburn, Stephen

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Heyes, David

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Hinchliffe, David

Dalyell, Tarn

Hodge, Margaret

Darling, rh Alistair

Holmes, Paul

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

David, Wayne

Sefton E)

Davidson, Ian

Howells, Dr. Kim

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

Dawson, Hilton

Dean, Mrs Janet

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Denham, rh John

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Dhanda, Parmjit

Humble, Mrs Joan

Dismore, Andrew

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Hutton, rh John

Dobson, rh Frank

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Donohoe, Brian H.

Illsley, Eric

Doran, Frank

Ingram, rh Adam

Doughty, Sue

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

Drew, David (Stroud)

Drown, Ms Julia

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Jamieson, David

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Jenkins, Brian

Edwards, Huw

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Efford, Clive

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Etherington, Bill

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Farrelly, Paul

Keeble, Ms Sally

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Fisher, Mark

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Kemp, Fraser

Flint, Caroline

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Khabra, Piara S.

Follett, Barbara

Kidney, David

Foster, rh Derek

King, Andy (Rugby)

Foster, Don (Bath)

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

Kirkwood, Sir Archy

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Gardiner, Barry

Lamb, Norman

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Lammy, David

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Gerrard, Neil

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Gidley, Sandra

Lazarowicz, Mark

Gilroy, Linda

Lepper, David

Godsiff, Roger

Leslie, Christopher

Goggins, Paul

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Linton, Martin

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Grogan, John

Love, Andrew

Hain, rh Peter

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

130

McAvoy, Thomas

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

McCabe, Stephen

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

McCafferty, Chris

Rendel, David

McCartney, rh Ian

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

McDonagh, Siobhain

MacDonald, Calum

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

McDonnell, John

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

MacDougall, John

Ruddock, Joan

McFall, John

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

McIsaac, Shona

McKechin, Ann

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Sanders, Adrian

McNulty, Tony

Sarwar, Mohammad

MacShane, Denis

Savidge, Malcolm

McWalter, Tony

Sedgemore, Brian

McWilliam, John

Shaw, Jonathan

Mahmood, Khalid

Sheerman, Barry

Mallaber, Judy

Sheridan, Jim

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Short, rh Clare

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Simon, Sion (B'ham Erdington)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

Skinner, Dennis

Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Martlew, Eric

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

Michael, rh Alun

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Milburn, rh Alan

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Miliband, David

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Miller, Andrew

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

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Moffatt, Laura

Soley, Clive

Mole, Chris

Southworth, Helen

Moonie, Dr. Lewis

Spellar, rh John

Moran, Margaret

Squire, Rachel

Morgan, Julie

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Morley, Elliot

Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

Mountford, Kali

Mudie, George

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Mullin, Chris

Stinchcombe, Paul

Munn, Ms Meg

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Stunell, Andrew

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Sutcliffe, Gerry

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

O'Hara, Edward

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Olner, Bill

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

O'Neill, Martin

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Öpik, Lembit

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Owen, Albert

Timms, Stephen

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Pearson, Ian

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Perham, Linda

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Picking, Anne

Trickett, Jon

Pickthall, Colin

Truswell, Paul

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Plaskitt, James

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Pollard, Kerry

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Prescott, rh John

Walley, Ms Joan

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Wareing, Robert N.

Watts, David

Prosser, Gwyn

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Pugh, Dr. John

White, Brian

Purchase, Ken

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Quin, rh Joyce

Wicks, Malcolm

Quinn, Lawrie

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Raynsford, rh Nick

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

131

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

Wilson, Brian

Winnick, David

Wright, David (Telford)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Woodward, Shaun

Tellers for the Noes:

Woolas, Phil

Dan Norris and

Worthington, Tony

Mr. John Heppell

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on second or third reading):—
The House divided: Ayes 368, Noes 142.

Division No. 39]

[10:15 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Ainger, Nick

Caplin, Ivor

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Carmichael, Alistair

Alexander, Douglas

Casale, Roger

Allan, Richard

Caton, Martin

Allen, Graham

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Challen, Colin

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

Chaytor, David

Chidgey, David

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Clapham, Michael

Atherton, Ms Candy

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Atkins, Charlotte

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Bailey, Adrian

Baird, Vera

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Barnes, Harry

Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

Barrett, John

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Barron, rh Kevin

Battle, John

Clelland, David

Bayley, Hugh

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Beard, Nigel

Coaker, Vernon

Beckett, rh Margaret

Coffey, Ms Ann

Begg, Miss Anne

Colman, Tony

Beith, rh A. J.

Connarty, Michael

Benn, Hilary

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Bennett, Andrew

Corbyn, Jeremy

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Corston, Jean

Berry, Roger

Cousins, Jim

Best, Harold

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Blackman, Liz

Cranston, hon. Ross

Crausby, David

Blears, Ms Hazel

Cruddas, Jon

Blizzard, Bob

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Borrow, David

Cummings, John

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Bradshaw, Ben

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Breed, Colin

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Brennan, Kevin

Dalyell, Tarn

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Darling, rh Alistair

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

David, Wayne

Bruce, Malcolm

Davidson, Ian

Bryant Chris

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Buck, Ms Karen

Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Dawson, Hilton

Burden, Richard

Dean, Mrs Janet

Burgon, Colin

Denham, rh John

Burnett, John

Dhanda, Parmjit

Burnham, Andy

Dismore, Andrew

Burstow, Paul

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Byers, rh Stephen

Dobson, rh Frank

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Donohoe, Brian H.

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Doran, Frank

132

Doughty, Sue

Illsley, Eric

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Ingram, rh Adam

Drew, David (Stroud)

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Drown, Ms Julia

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Edwards, Huw

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Efford, Clive

Jamieson, David

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Jenkins, Brian

Etherington, Bill

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Farrelly, Paul

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Fisher Mark

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Flint, Caroline

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Follett, Barbara

Kemp, Fraser

Foster, rh Derek

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Khabra, Piara S.

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Kidney, David

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

King, Andy (Rugby)

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

Kirkwood, Sir Archy

Gardiner, Barry

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Gerrard, Neil

Lamb, Norman

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Lammy, David

Gidley, Sandra

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Gilroy, Linda

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Godsiff, Roger

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Goggins, Paul

Lazarowicz, Mark

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Lepper, David

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Leslie, Christopher

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Linton, Martin

Grogan, John

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Hain, rh Peter

Llwyd, Elfyn

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Love, Andrew

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

McAvoy, Thomas

Hancock, Mike

McCabe, Stephen

Hanson, David

McCafferty, Chris

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

McCartney, rh Ian

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

McDonagh, Siobhain

MacDonald, Calum

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

McDonnell, John

Harvey, Nick

MacDougall, John

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

McFall, John

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Healey, John

McIsaac, Shona

Heath, David

McKechin, Ann

Hendrick, Mark

Mackinlay, Andrew

Hepburn, Stephen

McNulty, Tony

Heyes, David

MacShane, Denis

McWalter, Tony

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

McWilliam, John

Hinchliffe, David

Mahmood, Khalid

Hodge, Margaret

Holmes, Paul

Mallaber, Judy

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

Howells, Dr. Kim

Hoyle, Lindsay

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

Martlew, Eric

Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Michael, rh Alun

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Milburn, rh Alan

Humble, Mrs Joan

Miliband, David

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Miller, Andrew

Hutton, rh John

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Moffatt, Laura

133

Mole, Chris

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Moonie, Dr. Lewis

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Moran, Margaret

Morgan, Julie

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Morley, Elliot

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Mountford, Kali

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Mudie, George

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

Mullin, Chris

Munn, Ms Meg

Soley, Clive

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Southworth, Helen

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Spellar, rh John

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Squire, Rachel

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

O'Hara, Edward

Olner, Bill

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

O'Neill, Martin

Stinchcombe, Paul

Öpik, Lembit

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

Owen, Albert

Stunell, Andrew

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Pearson, Ian

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Perham, Linda

Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

Picking, Anne

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Pickthall, Colin

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Plaskitt, James

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Pollard, Kerry

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Timms, Stephen

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Trickett, Jon

Prescott, rh John

Truswell, Paul

Price, Adam (E Csrmarthon & Dinefwr)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Prosser, Gwyn

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Pugh, Dr. John

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Purchase, Ken

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Quin, rh Joyce

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Quinn, Lawrie

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Walley, Ms Joan

Raynsford, rh Nick

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Wareing, Robert N.

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Rendel, David

White, Brian

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Wicks, Malcolm

Ross. Ernie (Dundee W)

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Ruddock, Joan

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

Wilson, Brian

Winnick, David

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Sanders, Adrian

Sarwar, Mohammad

Woodward, Shaun

Savidge, Malcolm

Woolas, Phil

Sawford, Phil

Worthington, Tony

Sedgemore, Brian

Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

Shaw, Jonathan

Sheerman, Barry

Wright, David (Telford)

Sheridan, Jim

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Simon, Sion (B'ham Erdington)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Skinner, Dennis

Dan Norris and

Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

Mr. John Heppell

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Baldry, Tony

Amess, David

Barker, Gregory

Ancram, rh Michael

Baron, John (Billericay)

Arbuthnot, rh James

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Bellingham, Henry

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Bercow, John

Bacon, Richard

Beresford, Sir Paul

134

Blunt, Crispin

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Boswell, Tim

Lidington, David

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Lilley, rh Peter

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Brady, Graham

MacKay, rh Andrew

Brazier, Julian

Maclean, rh David

Browning, Mrs Angela

McLoughlin, Patrick

Burns, Simon

Maples, John

Burnside, David

Maude, rh Francis

Burt, Alistair

May, Mrs Theresa

Butterfill, John

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Cameron, David

Cash, William

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Norman, Archie

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Chope, Christopher

Ottaway, Richard

Clappison, James

Page, Richard

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Paice, James

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Paterson, Owen

Collins, Tim

Pickles, Eric

Conway, Derek

Portillo, rh Michael

Curry, rh David

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

Randall, John

Redwood, rh John

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Robathan, Andrew

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

Djanogly, Jonathan

Dodds, Nigel

Rosindell, Andrew

Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

Ruffley, David

Dorrell, rh Stephen

Sayeed, Jonathan

Duncan Smith, rh Iain

Selous, Andrew

Evans, Nigel

Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

Fabricant, Michael

Shepherd, Richard

Fallon, Michael

Simmonds, Mark

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

Flight, Howard

Soames, Nicholas

Flook, Adrian

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Fox, Dr. Liam

Spicer, Sir Michael

Francois, Mark

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Spring, Richard

Garnier, Edward

Stanley, rh Sir John

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Streeter, Gary

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Swayne, Desmond

Goodman, Paul

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Syms, Robert

Grayling, Chris

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Greenway, John

Tredinnick, David

Grieve, Dominic

Trend, Michael

Gummer, rh John

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Hague, rh William

Tyrie, Andrew

Hammond, Philip

Viggers, Peter

Hawkins, Nick

Walter, Robert

Heald, Oliver

Waterson, Nigel

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Watkinson, Angela

Hermon, Lady

Whittingdale, John

Hogg, rh Douglas

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Horam, John (Orpington)

Wiggin, Bill

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Willetts, David

Hunter, Andrew

Wilshire, David

Jack, rh Michael

Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Jenkin, Bernard

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Young, rh Sir George

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Lansley, Andrew

Tellers for the Noes:

Letwin, rh Oliver

Mr. Laurence Robertson and

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Mr. Mark Hoban

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Local Government Bill

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL (PROGRAMME)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Local Government Bill—

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL (PROGRAMME)

    Committal
    1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
    Proceedings in Standing Committee
    2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 6th February 2003.
    3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

    Consideration and Third Reading
    4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
    5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced.
    6. Sessional Order B (programming committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

    Other proceedings
    7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments or any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.
    The House divided: Ayes 318, Noes 183.

    Division No. 40]

    [10.28 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Burden, Richard

    Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

    Burgon, Colin

    Ainger, Nick

    Burnham, Andy

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Alexander, Douglas

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

    Caplin, Ivor

    Casale, Roger

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Caton, Martin

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Challen, Colin

    Bailey, Adrian

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Baird, Vera

    Chaytor, David

    Barnes, Harry

    Clapham, Michael

    Barron, rh Kevin

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Battle, John

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Beard, Nigel

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Beckett, rh Margaret

    Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

    Benn, Hilary

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Clelland, David

    Berry, Roger

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    Best, Harold

    Coaker, Vernon

    Blackman, Liz

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Colman, Tony

    Blizzard, Bob

    Connarty, Michael

    Borrow, David

    Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Corston, Jean

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Cousins, Jim

    Brennan, Kevin

    Cox, Tom (Tooting)

    Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

    Cranston, hon. Ross

    Crausby, David

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Cruddas, Jon

    Bryant, Chris

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Cummings, John

    136

    Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Hutton, rh John

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Illsley, Eric

    Darling, rh Alistair

    Ingram, rh Adam

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    David, Wayne

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

    Davidson, Ian

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Jamieson, David

    Dawson, Hilton

    Jenkins, Brian

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Doran, Frank

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    Keen, Ann (Brentford)

    Drew, David (Stroud)

    Kemp, Fraser

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Edwards, Huw

    Kidney, David

    Efford, Clive

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

    Etherington, Bill

    Farrelly, Paul

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Fisher, Mark

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Lammy, David

    Flint, Caroline

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

    Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

    Follett, Barbara

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Foster, rh Derek

    Lepper, David

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Leslie, Christopher

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    Linton, Martin

    Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Gardiner, Barry

    Love, Andrew

    George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

    Gibson, Dr. Ian

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Gilroy, Linda

    McCabe, Stephen

    Godsiff, Roger

    McCafferty, Chris

    Goggins, Paul

    McCartney, rh Ian

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    MacDonald, Calum

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    McDonnell. John

    Grogan, John

    MacDougall, John

    Hain, rh Peter

    McFall, John

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    McKechin, Ann

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Hanson, David

    McNulty, Tony

    Harman, rh Ms Harriet

    MacShane, Denis

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    McWalter, Tony

    Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

    McWilliam, John

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Healey, John

    Mallaber, Judy

    Hendrick, Mark

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Heyes, David

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Hodge, Margaret

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Martlew, Eric

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

    Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

    Michael, rh Alun

    Howells, Dr. Kim

    Miliband, David

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Miller, Andrew

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Moffatt, Laura

    137

    Mole, Chris

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Moonie, Dr. Lewis

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Moran, Margaret

    Morgan, Julie

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Morley, Elliot

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Mountford, Kali

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Mudie, George

    Soley, Clive

    Mullin, Chris

    Southworth, Helen

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Spellar, rh John

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Squire, Rachel

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Naysmith, Dr. Doug

    Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Olner, Bill

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    O'Neill, Martin

    Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Owen, Albert

    Tami, Mark (Alyn)

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

    Pearson, Ian

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    Perham, Linda

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Picking, Anne

    Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Timms, Stephen

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

    Plaskitt, James

    Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Trickett, Jon

    Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

    Truswell, Paul

    Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

    Purchase, Ken

    Vis, Dr. Rudi

    Quin, rh Joyce

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Watts, David

    Raynsford, rh Nick

    White, Brian

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    Wilson, Brian

    Ruddock, Joan

    Winnick, David

    Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    Woodward, Shaun

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Woolas, Phil

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Worthington, Tony

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Sheerman, Barry

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Sheridan, Jim

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Simon, Sion (B'ham Erdington)

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Skinner, Dennis

    Dan Norris and

    Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

    Mr. John Heppell

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Blunt, Crispin

    Allan, Richard

    Boswell, Tim

    Amess, David

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Ancram, rh Michael

    Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

    Arbuthnot, rh James

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Brady, Graham

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

    Bacon, Richard

    Brazier, Julian

    Baldry, Tony

    Breed, Colin

    Barker, Gregory

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

    Baron, John (Billericay)

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Barrett, John

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

    Burnett, John

    Beith, rh A. J.

    Burns, Simon

    Bellingham, Henry

    Burnside, David

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Burstow, Paul

    138

    Burt, Alistair

    Lansley, Andrew

    Butterfill, John

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Cable, Dr. Vincent

    Letwin, rh Oliver

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

    Cameron, David

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Lidington, David

    Cash, William

    Lilley, rh Peter

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

    Chidgey, David

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Chope, Christopher

    MacKay, rh Andrew

    Clappison, James

    Maclean, rh David

    Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Maude, rh Francis

    Collins, Tim

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Conway, Derek

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

    Curry, rh David

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Murrison, Dr. Andrew

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

    Norman, Archie

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Ottaway, Richard

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Page, Richard

    Dodds, Nigel

    Paice, James

    Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

    Paterson, Owen

    Dorrell, rh Stephen

    Pickles, Eric

    Doughty, Sue

    Portillo, rh Michael

    Duncan Smith, rh Iain

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

    Evans, Nigel

    Fabricant, Michael

    Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

    Fallon, Michael

    Pugh, Dr. John

    Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

    Randall, John

    Redwood, rh John

    Flight, Howard

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Flook, Adrian

    Rendel, David

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Fox, Dr. Liam

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

    Francois, Mark

    Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Garnier, Edward

    Ruffley, David

    George, Andrew (St. Ives)

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

    Sanders, Adrian

    Gidley, Sandra

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Selous, Andrew

    Goodman, Paul

    Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

    Gray, James (N Wilts)

    Shepherd, Richard

    Grayling, Chris

    Simmonds, Mark

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

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

    Greenway, John

    Grieve, Dominic

    Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

    Gummer, rh John

    Soames, Nicholas

    Hague, rh William

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Hammond, Philip

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Hancock, Mike

    Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

    Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

    Spring, Richard

    Stanley, rh Sir John

    Harvey, Nick

    Streeter, Gary

    Hawkins, Nick

    Stunell, Andrew

    Heald, Oliver

    Swayne, Desmond

    Heath, David

    Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

    Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

    Syms, Robert

    Hermon, Lady

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Hogg, rh Douglas

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Holmes, Paul

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Horam, John (Orpington)

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Tonge, Dr. Jenny

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Tredinnick, David

    Hunter, Andrew

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Jack, rh Michael

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Viggers, Peter

    Key, Robert (Salisbury)

    Walter, Robert

    Kirkwood, Sir Archy

    Waterson, Nigel

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Watkinson, Angela

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Webb, Steve (Northavon)

    Lamb, Norman

    Whittingdale, John

    139

    Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Wiggin, Bill

    Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

    Willetts, David

    Young, rh Sir George

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Mr. Laurence Robertson and

    Witshire, David

    Mr. Mark Hoban

    Question accordingly agreed to.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL [MONEY]
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)(Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
  That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Government Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
  (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure under the Act of a Minister of the Crown or government department;
  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other enactment are payable out of money so provided; and
  (c) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other enactment are payable out of that Fund.—[Joan Ryan]
  Question agreed to.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
  That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Government Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Consolidated Fund of—
  (a) any sums received under the Act by a Minister of the Crown;
  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable into that Fund under any other enactment; and
  (c) any sums received by a valuation officer by way of penalty.—[Joan Ryan.]
  The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 22.

  Division No. 41]

  [10:44 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Allan, Richard

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Baird, Vera

  Bryant, Chris

  Barnes, Harry

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Barrett, John

  Burden, Richard

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Burgon, Colin

  Battle, John

  Burnett, John

  Beard, Nigel

  Burnham, Andy

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Benn, Hilary

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Berry, Roger

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Best, Harold

  Caton, Martin

  Blackman, Liz

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Chidgey, David

  Borrow, David

  Clapham, Michael

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  140

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Holmes, Paul

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Colman, Tony

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Connarty, Michael

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Hutton, rh John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Corston, Jean

  Illsley, Eric

  Crausby, David

  Jamieson, David

  Cruddas, Jon

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Kemp, Fraser

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Kidney, David

  David, Wayne

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Davidson, Ian

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Lamb, Norman

  Dawson, Hilton

  Lammy, David

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Leslie, Christopher

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Doughty, Sue

  Linton, Martin

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Love, Andrew

  Drown, Ms Julia

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Efford, Clive

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  MacDonald, Calum

  Farrelly, Paul

  McDonnell, John

  Fisher, Mark

  MacDougall, John

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McFall, John

  Foster, rh Derek

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  McKechin, Ann

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  McNulty, Tony

  McWilliam, John

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Mallaber, Judy

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Martlew, Eric

  Gilroy, Linda

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Goggins, Paul

  Michael, rh Alun

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Miller, Andrew

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Moran, Margaret

  Grogan, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mountford, Kali

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Mudie, George

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Mullin, Chris

  Hanson, David

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Healey, John

  Olner, Bill

  Heath, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hendrick, Mark

  Öpik, Lembit

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Owen, Albert

  Heyes, David

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Pearson, Ian

  141

  Perham, Linda

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Picking, Anne

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Plaskitt, James

  Stunell, Andrew

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Timms, Stephen

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Purchase, Ken

  Trickett, Jon

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Truswell, Paul

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Reed, Andy (Loughbomugh)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Rendel David

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Watts, David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  White, Brian

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Wilson, Brian

  Skinner, Dennis

  Winnick, David

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Woolas, Phil

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

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

  Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Southworth, Helen

  Spellar, rh John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Squire, Rachel

  Dan Norris and

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Mr. John Heppell

  NOES

  Amess, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Randall, John

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Burt, Alistair

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Dodds, Nigel

  Swayne, Desmond

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Francois, Mark

  Viggers, Peter

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Watkinson, Angela

  Hermon, Lady

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Mr. Douglas Hogg and

  Maclean, rh David

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell

  Question accordingly agreed to.

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

    STAFFING NEEDS OF COMMISSION IN ENLARGED EUROPEAN UNION
    That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 9759/02, Commission Communication on the activities and human resources of the Commission in the enlarged European Union; supports the Government's position that the details of the Communication are timely and that the Commission's commitment to reconsider reassessment prior to each preliminary
    142
    draft budget is welcome; welcomes the Government's emphasis on the importance of keeping to the Berlin financial agreement; and supports the Government's aim of working to ensure the necessary resources are made available within the agreed ceilings.—[Joan Ryan.]
    Question agreed to.

    DENIED BOARDING COMPENSATION FOR AIR PASSENGERS
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Standing Committees),
    That this House takes note of European Union documents No. 5129/02, draft Regulation establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to air passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delays of flights, and No. 13312/02, European Parliament Amendments to the draft Regulation; and supports the Government's objective to achieve enhanced passenger protection but without imposing significant new burdens on the airline industry.—[Joan Ryan.]
    Question agreed to.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Tuesday 14th January,

  (1) the Motion in the name of Mr David Trimble may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Four o'clock or three hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later, and if proceedings have not previously been concluded they shall lapse at that time; and paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) shall apply to the proceedings as if the day were an Opposition Day; and

  (2) the Motion for the adjournment of the House relating to the 2012 Olympics may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours after it has been entered upon, and the Motion shall then lapse.—[Joan Ryan.]

  Question agreed to.

  COMMITTEES
    That Tom Brake be discharged from the Accommodation and Works Committee and Sir Robert Smith be added to the committee.
    TREASURY
    That Mr David Laws be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Norman Lamb be added to the Committee.— [Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
PETITION

  Natural Health Products
  10.56 pm
  Mr. Andrew Turner: It gives me great pleasure to present this petition on behalf of 380 supporters of Consumers for Health Choice in my constituency and beyond.
  The petition of Consumers for Health Choice and its supporters declares:
  That consumers in the United Kingdom have for many years maintained good health by choosing to take safe vitamin and mineral supplements and herbal remedies; and fears that the

  143
  European Food Supplements Directive and the Proposed European Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products would severely restrict the number and range of such products on general retail sale in the future.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons requires that the Secretary of State for Health does all in his power to protect the rights of UK consumers by ensuring such European legislation does not unnecessarily and unacceptably restrict the availability of natural health products.
  And the petitioners remain etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Elmet (Roads)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Joan Ryan.]
  10.57 pm
  Colin Burgon: Given the previous business, it is a good job that I am not paranoid as there seemed to be a Conservative plot to stop me from speaking. That could be connected with the fact that one of the subjects that I shall discuss is the upgrading of the A1, which the Conservative Government cancelled in 1996. However, truth will out. I stuck to my guns and now is my chance to speak.
  May I express my gratitude to Mr. Speaker for allowing me this opportunity to raise an issue of both national and local importance? The debate enables me to deal with two motorway issues in my constituency. As I am a history enthusiast, I shall take them chronologically.
  First, there is the M1-A1 link, which cuts through my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie). As the Under-Secretary of State for Transport will know that road was built under a design, build, finance and operate contract during the previous Conservative Government. Although the audit report indicated savings of £80 million compared to more conventional funding, I was roughly correct when I said that success of that commercially driven project should not be achieved at the expense of local people's quality of life.
  As soon as the road opened in February 1999, it was clear that the noise levels were unacceptable to many of my constituents in places such as Garforth, Swillington and Aberford. According to research produced by the Library in April 1999, the noise on the newly opened road was about 3 to 4 dB higher than had been estimated at the public inquiry.
  It was predicted that, by 2012, the average number of vehicles passing Garforth every day would be between 49,000 and 59,800. In fact, according to Highways Agency figures, the number of vehicles had already reached 59,600 by 2001. What local residents and I find so appalling is that the previous Conservative Government had what can only be classed as a very relaxed attitude—I nearly said "cavalier" but, as we are talking about roads, I changed my adjective—to the impact of road noise on my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East.
  At the public inquiry in 1993, the independent inspector recommended the use of quieter road surfaces and appropriate sound barriers to minimise noise problems near the sensitive locations of Garforth, Aberford and Austhorpe. As a local person, I would have added Colton and Swillington to that list. Unfortunately, his recommendations were not included by the Conservative Secretary of State when the orders were made, so the contractor was allowed to build a virtually maintenance-free carriageway that would see out the 30 years of the contract and, therefore, maximise their profits.
  I am pleased to say that, as a result of the pressure exerted by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East and me, the Highways Agency announced within a few months of the opening of the link that a 2.6 km stretch

  145
  of the concrete surface adjacent to Garforth would be treated with noise reduction blacktop. I am not quite sure what the technical term is for that, but I think that that description fits the bill for most people. Although this concrete surface, which constitutes the backbone of the M1 link, seems to make good business sense, it does not make good sense for those who have to live near it. I am glad that this Government have given a target for the resurfacing of all concrete surfaces on trunk roads by 2010, according to Transport 2010, the 10-year plan published in July 2000. In the light of that target, may I ask the Minister when my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East and I can look forward to the patchwork quilt surface of the M1-A1 link being uniformly covered with a quieter surface?
  Will the Minister also assure me, in the light of the disregard for the well-being of the local residents displayed by the previous Conservative Government, that the fullest possible public consultation will be carried out, and that every reasonable effort will be made to incorporate and address legitimate public concerns in respect of the impending upgrading of the A1? To encourage this process, I have already discussed the project with members of several parish councils that lie along the route of the road, along with Alec Briggs from the Highways Agency. The meeting was very informative, and I am confident that Mr. Briggs and his team will listen to the sensible suggestions that we put forward. I will continue this process of consultation over the coming years, in an effort to ensure that local knowledge can be fed into the process and begin to shape it.
  In a project of this scale, a number of details will need to be addressed. If that can be done positively, the communities neighbouring the A1 will derive some benefit from the process. Consequently, I would like to put a number of points to the Minister, and I hope that they will elicit a series of positive answers. Because the design, build, finance and operate contract for upgrading the A1 between Wetherby and Walshford will be completed in 2005—well before the DBFO for the upgrading of the A1 between Bramham and Wetherby in 2006–07—there could be a three-year period of disruption to the local road system. For example, slip roads such as that at York road in Wetherby—near the racecourse, for those who know the area—are due to be closed as part of the earlier Walshford-to-Wetherby DBFO. If left open, those roads would relieve some of the traffic problems caused by the second DBFO.
  This second DBFO will start with the construction of a three-lane carriageway to the east of the existing road. On completion, traffic will switch to the new carriageway, allowing the existing road to be closed and converted to a three-lane carriageway and an access road for Wetherby town. The optimum arrangement would be to retain the York road slip roads, so that as many routes in and out of Wetherby town could be retained for as long as possible. What thought has the Minister given to proposals to dovetail the two contracts, so that they could run alongside each other, to delay some of the slip road closures and to bring forward other work, such as the new eastern carriageway for the bypass?
  I do not wish to tie the Minister's hands, but it seems only sensible that the company that is awarded the first contract should also be awarded the second. If that
  146
  cannot be done for reasons of commercial or legal transparency, could the need for dovetailing become a centrepiece of the Highways Agency's thinking in the framing of the contracts?
  During the consultations that I have mentioned with the parish councils of the villages of Bramham, Clifford, Boston Spa, Walton and Thorp Arch, they have all expressed their concern that the main route to the Thorp Arch trading estate, which lies to the east of these communities, will become difficult to access, and drivers will look to use narrow village roads like Spring lane in Walton, the high street, which is already heavily congested, and Bridge road in Boston Spa.
  I am not convinced that the final road layout will be in place by 2008 will solve the access problem. I agree with Bramham parish council's argument that there appears to be a need for some sort of dual carriageway access road from Walton road to the Grange Moor interchange, so that that route becomes the one that drivers choose. Will the Minister agree that the upgrade, both in its construction, and on completion, should discourage drivers from using the village roads, such as the ones that I have mentioned, to access a major trading estate, which it is rumoured will one day become a large housing development area or even a new town?
  I feel strongly that the historic town centre of Wetherby needs to be protected from additional traffic. The layout of the town was built in another era and it is not suited to the 21st century traffic loads that it has to sustain. If all its slip roads to the A1 are removed as part of the upgrading works, traffic in the town centre will increase, as the inspector at the public inquiry agreed. Will the Minister agree that it is desirable to keep to a minimum the amount of traffic that has to be diverted through Wetherby because of the A1 upgrade, and what thought has he given to what could be a difficult and perhaps intractable problem?
  In my discussions with the Highways Agency, I was pleased to hear it confirmed that attention is being paid to the problem of road noise. It is a central issue in the construction of new roads. Many of the village communities and Wetherby town residents have expressed their concerns on this issue. The mistakes that were made by the previous Government on the M1-A1 link road look likely, as things stand, to be avoided. However, being sometimes the pessimist that I am, I would like some reassurance on what I consider to be a very important issue. Can the Minister confirm that a low-noise asphalt will be used? Are there to be any stretches where low-noise asphalt will not be specified?
  The public consultation document on the Bramham to Wetherby upgrade indicates that mounding, noise fencing and tree barriers will be used to reduce the noise where appropriate. That is welcome, but similar barriers have not been that effective on the Ml-A1 link. When it comes to trees, we seem to be planting the smallest that we can get our hands on. Many of us will not be here to see them when they grow to their full size. David Evans, chair of Bramham parish council, was in touch with my office only yesterday to stress the council's view that without about a 4 m high mounding from Bramham crossroads to the Grange Moor interchange, the noise levels will not be reduced to a desirable and tolerable level. I realise—I think that most sensible people realise—that noise can never be eradicated completely,

  147
  but the upgrading is an opportunity to minimise the problem of road noise. I hope that we can take the opportunity with both hands.
  Will the Minister therefore agree that noise barriers need to be commensurate to the problem in each locality, and that some flexibility should be built into the specification to allow for any necessary adjustments that should arise during the 30-year period of the contract? There should be no off-the-shelf solution to what could well be difficult and complex problems along the route of the A1 and the upgrading area.
  What could be classed as a minor problem is an important matter for Bramham parish council. At present, there is a metalled cycle track that extends from Wetherby to Grange Moor. The parish council put it to me that with the construction of the access road alongside the upgraded A1, there is an opportunity to create a dual purpose pedestrian and cycle track, which could extend to the existing A64 cycle track to York. Will the Minister consider whether that is achievable?
  In my talks with the various bodies involved in the project, I have been pleased to hear from senior officers that there has been effective co-ordination between the Highways Agency and Leeds city council, and I hope that that co-ordination continues with the appointed contractor. Will the Minister do all that he can to encourage the closest possible working between the agency and the council so that we have a properly co-ordinated approach?
  As I hope the Minister is aware, I am committed to achieving the highest possible public participation in the consultation process. I have been working with the Highways Agency and parish councils to help to achieve that. If, as the work gets under way, major issues arise—let us hope that they do not—will the Minister be willing to meet me and a delegation from the parish councils with which I have been working closely?
  I hope that the Minister will accept that my approach is one of constructive questioning, because I want the project to succeed for the benefit of all those involved. On a more positive note, I know that he is aware that there is broad consensus at national level that the A1, as one of our main economic arteries, has to be updated. Completion of the work will mean continuous motorway access between Gateshead in the north-east, through Yorkshire, and on as far as London. I know that the business community welcomes it, and some of my Scottish colleagues, in far rougher language than that used by the business community, have told me tonight that it is about time that somebody did something about the A1.
  The upgrading of the A1 will be welcomed also on grounds of safety. On the 29 miles of the road included in the improvement scheme there were 583 accidents in the five years up to 2000, almost a third of which resulted in fatal or serious injury. The safety improvements will be welcomed by those who have long regarded as dangerous the sudden transformation of the A1 from three lanes to two as one drives around Wetherby coming up from Bramham. I myself have witnessed hairy scenes the build-up of large traffic jams at that spot. I am sure that the upgrading will address that problem, and I seek the Minister's assurance on that.
  148
  The new route of the A1 heading north from above the York road junction to Walshford will mean that a sizeable number of Wetherby residents to the east of Deighton road will no longer have a major national route running along the bottom of their street, and I am sure that they will very much welcome that.
  It is clear that the upgrading of the A1 is a major project, dealing as it does with one of our major stretches of transport infrastructure. Given the scale and importance of the job, we need to get it right. We must make sure that there is effective local input so that local needs, local knowledge and local ideas are fully taken on board. For my part, I will do my best to ensure that that is the case. I hope that the Minister will agree with me.
  11.13 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) not only on securing this debate, but on his clear and studied approach to his subject. Since he was elected to the House he has proved to be a relentless and powerful advocate for his constituents, particularly, if I may say so, on transport matters.
  As my hon. Friend has said, the M1 and the A1 in his constituency to the east of Leeds are vital links in the strategic highway network. Together with the connections to the north along the A1 and to the south along the A1, M1 and M62, they form the key north-south routes between Scotland and the north-east of England and the rest of the country. At a regional level they represent an important artery providing access between the more rural parts of North Yorkshire and the major towns and cities of west and South Yorkshire. At a local level they perform an essential function in keeping long-distance, strategic traffic away from market towns such as Wetherby and neighbouring villages, and hence minimising environmental impacts.
  The volume of traffic using those roads demonstrates their importance. For example, the A1 south of Wetherby is currently used by about 74,000 vehicles a day, and the A1(M) south of Bramham is used by more than 100,000 vehicles a day. We face a major challenge in maintaining the quality of service provided by those key routes in the face of steadily rising volumes of traffic. That is a reflection of economic growth—one of the problems of economic success resulting from our careful and prudent management of the economy is extra traffic wanting to use the roads. However, the Government are committed to an unprecedented programme of investment to upgrade the A1 in Yorkshire to a motorway, which will ensure that that route continues to function effectively in meeting national, regional and local needs. That is essential if we are to support continued growth of the economy and, at the same time, ensure that the impacts on local communities of traffic growth are minimised, as my hon. Friend poignantly pointed out.
  Plans to upgrade the A1 form one element in the Government's broader integrated transport strategy, which aims to deliver significant improvements across all modes, including road and rail. I shall put our national approach to road improvements in context, then move on to the specific points made by my hon. Friend. The 10-year plan published in April 2001 set out

  149
  an ambitious programme of investment amounting to £180 billion across the decade to 2010–11. The progress report on the 10-year plan published in December last year showed that a good start had been made in the first 18 months, but much more remains to be done. We are committed to reviewing the 10-year plan in 2004 to coincide with the next public expenditure review, and will take account of the progress made so far and the challenges that have to be met in the period to 2015 and beyond.
  Such long-term commitment and planning are essential if we are to rebuild and maintain the transport infrastructure that we need for continued growth and prosperity. There are no quick fixes or easy solutions. The 10-year plan made provision for sustained investment year on year, but that will take time. Our approach to tackling congestion and improving safety on the strategic road network is a balanced one. Improving both the capacity and the management of the network plays an important part, particularly in the near term—we must deal with the immediate problems on key corridors and pinch points—but so too do measures to address the growth in demand for road travel and the provision of better alternatives.
  In the case of the A1, since the 10-year plan was published, we have made good progress on upgrading the A1 to a motorway throughout much of its length in Yorkshire, as I am sure my hon. Friend is aware. The existing schemes in the targeted programme of improvements have been taken forward and further schemes were added in June 2002. In addition, the South and West Yorkshire multi-modal study has recently reported and recommended upgrading the A1 to a dual three-lane motorway between Darrington and the M18. The Government will consider the study's recommendations together with the views of the Yorkshire and Humber Assembly and other regional stakeholders before making an announcement, I hope, in the spring.
  My hon. Friend asked a number of specific questions in our debate, which it would be appropriate to address in the order in which he asked them. I am pleased that he recognises the benefits of the M1 scheme and the use of private finance. I know that the use of concrete carriageways has resulted in noise levels higher than those originally predicted. My hon. Friend will be aware that one section of the route was identified as needing sensitive treatment close to Garforth, and was resurfaced shortly after opening. On the general subject of concrete roads, in October 2001 I announced the first list of concrete roads to be resurfaced as part of the 10-year plan. At the same time, I commissioned studies of 17 routes to establish the actual noise levels against those predicted. Once I have the results of those studies, I can further consider the programme for resurfacing. I hope to make an announcement on that in the next few months.
  Turning to the A1 schemes in the targeted programme, the next two sections of the A1 to be upgraded to motorway will be those from Wetherby to Walshford and from Ferrybridge to Hook Moor. Those schemes are to be taken forward as part of the A1 Darrington to Dishforth design, build, finance and operate project—DBFO—to which my hon. Friend referred. The total cost of that project is £250 million. The project also includes the operation and
  150
  maintenance of the A1 between Darrington and Dishforth. It is hoped to award this major private finance initiative project before the end of this month, with construction of these schemes programmed to start in spring 2003 for completion by 2006. Advance works costing £27 million have already been completed.
  The A1 Wetherby to Walshford scheme will provide a new dual three-lane motorway between Walton road east of Wetherby and the existing A1 motorway at Walshford. A new grade separated junction, known as the Kirk Deighton new junction, will be constructed to provide an improved connection between the new A1 motorway and the local road network.
  The Darrington to Dishforth DBFO project also incorporates a scheme to upgrade the A1 to a dual three-lane motorway between Ferrybridge and Hook Moor. The scheme will reduce congestion, improve road safety and improve the environment by removing through traffic from local communities, with major new junctions at the A63 and M62. In June 2002, three further A1 schemes were added to the targeted programme of improvements. The dual carriageway sections of the route from Bramham to Wetherby, Dishforth to Leeming and Leeming to Barton will be upgraded to motorway at a cost of £263 million. Together with other schemes in the TPI, this will deliver continuous motorway access between London and Tyneside via the A1(M) and the M1.
  All the work taking place on the roads in the area will, I am sure, provide a great deal of employment for my hon. Friends constituents. I note the level of energy that my hon. Friend has exerted in representing his constituents' interests, and that is to be admired. He can be assured that the Government recognise the need to elicit the views of those living locally to proposed schemes at an earlier stage than has perhaps been the case in the past. He can be assured that consultation with the public will continue. The Wetherby to Walshford scheme is well advanced, and further information will be made available to the public during construction. For the Bramham to Wetherby scheme, public involvement is just starting, with the public consultation exercise currently under way.
  My hon. Friend asked about dovetailing the two contracts. It is worth noting that the project management of both schemes is being undertaken by the Highways Agency carefully to manage their delivery. That does not necessarily mean that the two schemes need to be delivered by the same contractor. I do not think that any of us would wish to delay the Wetherby to Walshford scheme. The Highways Agency is fully aware of the need to improve the Bramham to Wetherby section as soon as possible, but of course that cannot be done until the public have been able to have their say as the scheme goes through its statutory processes. Also, attractive though it may seem simply to award the Bramham to Wetherby contract to the same contractor undertaking the Wetherby to Walshford scheme, my hon. Friend will recognise that it would be inappropriate to do so. Proper procurement channels must be followed to ensure best value for his constituents, and to meet the requirements of European legislation on such matters.
  My hon. Friend has a more detailed knowledge of the roads in his area than I do, although one would not

  151
  think so, listening to what I have been saying tonight to my hon. Friend. As regards access to the trading estate that he mentioned, I can assure him that neither I nor the Highways Agency would wish to encourage traffic to that successful industrial estate to take routes through local villages. In developing the Bramham to Wetherby proposals, the Highways Agency will take account of the need for good quality access to the site. However, he will understand that the complex layout of the scheme will preclude direct access from the new motorway at Walton road.
  My hon. Friend asked about ensuring that the traffic diverted through Wetherby as a result of the A1 upgrade is minimised. I can confirm that the Wetherby to Walshford scheme will include measures such as the new bridge carrying York road to cater for high loads, which will reduce the number o f heavy goods vehicles passing through Wetherby town centre. I recognise, of course, that the major benefits to Wetherby will materialise when the new local access road is built as part of the Bramham to Wetherby scheme. I will ensure that during the development and construction of these schemes, the Highways Agency continues to liaise closely with local authorities in the area to monitor changes in traffic patterns.
  My hon. Friend asked about low-noise asphalt. All new sections of road on the A1 will be constructed with low-noise asphalt surfacing. I am sure that he will be interested to know that the contract that is currently being negotiated for the A1 DBFO project will ensure that that is the case. The draft contract that is being prepared states:
  "the DBFO company shall ensure that all new and resurfaced carriageways on motorways and trunk roads forming part of the project road shall have quieter road surfaces".
  152
  In addition, it states:
  "Concrete running surfacing shall not be permitted for new construction on trunk roads or motorways".
  I am sure that that will bring considerable relief to him and his constituents who have to live near the roads.
  Under the current proposals, the existing carriageway of the Bramham to Wetherby section of the A1 will be retained and become the new motorway. It will, of course, be resurfaced with low-noise surfacing when maintenance is due. Its current condition suggests that that will occur between seven and 10 years from now.
  My hon. Friend referred to noise barriers, which will be designed to suit the conditions at each locality. They may not always meet the aspirations of local residents, but we will consult further with interested parties on such matters as part of the consideration of order preparation. I believe that our approach of identifying the most serious problems and directing resources to them is the better way forward. I am sure that he will agree that, overall, the A1 upgrading proposals will bring very considerable benefits to his constituents. I have also asked the Highways Agency to take account of the request for a cycleway in the design of the Bramham to Wetherby scheme as it develops.
  Finally, I can confirm that if my hon. Friend thinks that it is appropriate for me to meet local representatives, I shall, of course, be delighted to meet him and local residents to discuss any of the matters that have been raised.
  I again congratulate my hon. Friend not only on raising such important matters for his constituents, but on the way in which he has done so and the powerful way in which he has represented them here tonight.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. FRANK COOK in the Chair]

Foundation Hospitals
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
9.42 am
Ms Julia Drown: Thank you, Mr. Cook, and a happy new year to you and everybody. Thank you, in particular, for coming to rescue us today by taking the Chair. It is regrettable that we are starting 13 minutes late. I know that many hon. Members want to speak and so would like the debate to go on for the full one and a half hours. I will take the matter up with Mr. Speaker.
The Government have done much that is good in the NHS. There has been major investment and change such as nurse prescribing, the national service frameworks and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. In Swindon we have a new hospital and a walk-in centre, and NHS dentistry has returned. Before Christmas a diagnostic and treatment centre on our new hospital site was approved. We would not have seen those improvements under the Tories. There is no question of the Government's commitment to creating an NHS of which we can all be proud. I, as a supporter of the Government's NHS agenda, and a Co-operative party member, am keen to look at the Government's proposals on foundation hospitals. However, I am not convinced that it is the right reform or the right time for reform.
The Government are aware that there are problems with organisational change. They describe the changes already taking place in the NHS as the biggest organisational change since it was set up. When much of that has hardly settled, more reform needs to be considered with great caution. The NHS plan is hugely ambitious; my constituents in Swindon want the maximum waiting time of six months by 2005 for all in-patients to be delivered sooner than that. It will be a massive improvement on what we experienced under the Tories. If the Government believe that more can be done for the NHS, delivering quicker and better treatments should be the priority. Will more organisational change best deliver the improvements in patient care? It is boring to keep existing targets and it may not create news headlines, but is not what is wanted a determination to deliver what patients need?
I want to deal first with some of the Government's reasons for proposing the introduction of foundation hospitals. The first motivation described by Ministers is the need to give incentives to the best trusts; I have dealt with some of them for many years and they have not cried out for incentives. There is no better incentive than delivering the best service possible for patients and spreading good practice elsewhere in the NHS.
The second motivation cited by Ministers is that the creation of foundation hospitals will stop the Tories privatising the NHS. That is a good motivation, but the
2WH
Government do not need defensive policies; if the Tories were determined to privatise, although it is true that proposed legislation for foundation trusts would prevent privatisation, they could do so.
Mr. Simon Burns: May I say categorically that the Conservative party never has had and does not have any intention whatever of privatising the national health service?
Ms Drown: I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman say that, but many statements from the Tory party give one severe doubts. However, my point is that if a future Tory Government wanted to do so, we could not stop them pushing through legislation to allow trusts to be privatised. It is not as if they do not have experience of getting unpopular privatisations through the House.
The NHS is all about care services, but not just for the best hospitals. Why did the Government come up with the idea of foundation hospitals just by talking to the best and not consulting the middle and the worst hospitals, MPs, GPs, social services and others?
A third motivation is that Ministers say that everything cannot be run from Whitehall, but that leads to a strange feature of these proposals. If the organisational changes are needed to improve the efficiency of some hospitals to allow initiative and flair to be shown, why are not the same changes being made in all hospitals? The fact that foundation hospitals are proposed initially for three-star hospitals only, brings me to the first major concern, which is that they could be divisive—why only three-star and not zero-star hospitals? If the proposal is to work, it needs to work in all trusts and we cannot expect three-star hospitals always to stay as such. We assume that Nigel Crisp, chief executive of the NHS, is good at his job. From 1993 to 1997 he was chief executive of what is now the Oxford Radcliffe, which one would expect to have been a top performing hospital, but only five years later it is a one-star trust. Good trusts can turn out not to be so good.
Paragraph 4.1 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts" states that foundation trusts will not be subject to performance management by the Department of Health or strategic health authorities, but will be held to account by the commissioning process. We must ask by what levers; if a hospital is not performing, commissioners can threaten to move patients elsewhere, or actually move them, but that is not necessarily the best solution. Should not the Government allow themselves the ability to step in and support change management in foundation trusts, as they do in others? In some cases, it will be the quickest and most efficient way of turning a trust around. If the Government think that the commissioning process alone is the best way of achieving the changes needed, there is even more reason to say that all trusts should be foundation trusts, not just the three-star ones.
The Government say that hospitals must have a track record to deliver on foundation status. They say that there will be no cap on the number of foundation trusts, but it is not clear whether that means that all trusts will be able at some point to become three-star trusts and therefore foundation trusts, or whether the Government will, in the next round or a future round, allow two-star trusts to become foundation trusts. It would be helpful if that were clarified.

3WH
If public involvement helps to deliver faster improvements in patient services, surely it is even more important that the public are involved in zero-star hospitals than in those with three stars. The Government say that they cannot give those freedoms to poorly performing trusts, but ownership and freedoms are different. The one-star trusts could be given ownership, with the promise of freedoms when standards improve. That would be less divisive.
The logic of the Government's argument that not everything can be run from Whitehall is that the giving of more freedoms should apply to all. If enterprising managers and clinicians are prevented from doing good work, that will happen in three-star and zero-star hospitals, and in community services. Would it not be better to pilot for all the giving of freedoms from directives and then to widen those freedoms, rather than giving many freedoms to some? Should there not be help for the many, not the few? In any case, there are well and badly managed departments in all trusts. A simple one-star or three-star rating hides many variations within hospitals. Should not the good parts in all hospitals be rewarded?
Let us consider how the policy fits in with the new patients voice mechanisms. Foundation trusts will not have to set up their own patients forums. That suggests that the Government think that that type of central direction from Whitehall should be avoided, but they introduced that initiative only recently. I remember my hon. Friend the Minister ably defending the new systems at the Dispatch Box. She secured agreement to many of the changes in a way that many others would not have achieved, but if the new ways of involving patients are not necessarily right for all trusts, why was that not said at the time?
One of the freedoms proposed for foundation trusts is the freedom to pay additional rewards on top of national agreements. That could be hugely divisive and is understandably opposed by unions. Will it be reconsidered? The Tories tried to set up local pay to set one hospital against another; this Government cannot want to recreate that.
The Royal College of Nursing points out that such a system is wasteful in terms of bureaucracy, as local trusts have to have hyped-up human resource managers to negotiate individually with trade unions, and staff representatives have to spend time negotiating, rather than caring for patients. I remember the newspaper articles of 1996 saying that specialist nursing and therapeutic staff had to take time away from patients to negotiate pay deals. Recreating that system sounds illogical when a major new national pay agreement has just been announced.
Ministers will say that protections will be built in to ensure that foundation trusts do not undermine the ability of other NHS trusts to meet their obligations to provide NHS services. I take that to mean that the Government do not want foundation trusts to pinch staff from their neighbours, but how strong will the protections be? Will the neighbouring trusts have to sign off any pay differentials from the nationally agreed "Agenda for Change" deals? If the Government are
4WH
serious about fairness in pay, should not the neighbouring trusts have the power to do so? I hope that the Minister will say exactly what is intended.
The next freedom for foundation trusts is the freedom to borrow, but from within the overall NHS capital allocation as agreed with the Treasury. The overall capital allocation for the NHS will be divided into two: a foundation pot and a pot for other trusts. However, we know that the Government want foundation trusts to succeed, so a suspicion will be created that such trusts will be given an unfair proportion of NHS capital in a way that does not put clinical needs first. Will there be a safeguard against that, such as an agreement on the allocation by Parliament rather than by Ministers? Given that any private borrowing for foundation trusts is counted against the same capital pot, that could lead to private money replacing NHS capital with no added gain for the NHS.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my hon. Friend aware that in transport we have already seen what happens in exactly those circumstances? If private firms are brought in, they bring with them consultants and enormous overhead costs, and the money goes into totally unnecessary contractual deals, rather than into good services.
Ms Drown: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I am well aware of those concerns. It is important to learn lessons from other Departments so that we get the best as government policy is developed. I am sure that Ministers do not intend private capital simply to replace NHS capital, but will the Minister confirm that? If all borrowed capital comes from a fixed NHS pot, how will the Government ensure that that does not enable the Treasury to save on NHS capital?
Paragraph 1.32 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts" says:
"Subject to an overall duty to achieve value for money…capital schemes will not be subject to individual project by project approval by the Independent Regulator".
If so, how can the Government be sure that foundation trusts collectively will keep within their overall capital limit? What does value for money mean in this context? If a trust could borrow at 20 per cent. for a five-year pay-back scheme, could it take the loan even if it was known that NHS funding would produce a better result for the public purse?
Similar arguments can be made about the freedom to keep surpluses and to dispose of assets, so why should foundation trusts be given more freedom to keep surpluses when clinical need might dictate that other trusts need those surpluses more? What if a local commissioner would prefer a neighbouring trust, rather than the foundation trust, to keep its surplus?
Foundation trusts' freedom to invest is also bureaucratic. It means that finance directors are rewarded for extra responsibilities, but then have to get extra advice on investment. Surely that is not a good use of time? Rather than hundreds of finance staff investing small sums of money throughout the country, it would be better to leave surplus funds with the Chancellor of the Exchequer for him to look after until they were needed. A fundamental problem with creating different rules for different trusts on pay, keeping surpluses and

5WH
the ability to invest is that the effect is divisive, impacts on morale throughout the NHS and ultimately sets hospital against hospital.
I hope that the Minister will tell us about the other freedoms that the Government propose to give to the foundation trusts, which will be subject to the same standards and inspections and will still have to supply information centrally so that parliamentary questions can be asked and health committee analysis carried out. They will still have to adopt all the central strategies, such as those on information and sexual health, although the Minister may tell us that that is not the case. What will be the position of foundation trusts on the medical royal college recommendations, which sometimes delay or prevent recruitment for medical posts and seem to be an unnecessary barrier to expanding services? The proposal will be welcome if such a barrier can be removed, but that should be done for all trusts.
Will foundation trusts have to adopt policies such as family-friendly policies and zero tolerance of violence towards staff? Will maternity services have to provide women with the ability to choose where to give birth, and will the collection of maternity data have to be improved? Will the foundation trusts have to adopt catering standards such as providing halal meat, or comply with safety directives such as on the use of disposable instruments? I presume that they will have to follow all the standard directives, so which of the usual policies and directives will foundation trusts be free to vary or ignore? It would help our debates if the Minister clarified what those freedoms will be; answers given today could inform the debate to be held tomorrow on the Floor of the House.
However, the proposals include one major restriction alongside all these freedoms. Unlike many Members on the left, I support the treatment of private patients in NHS facilities. It is clear that in many trusts the treatment of private patients in NHS rather than private hospitals generates significant income for the NHS, which improves NHS care. Restricting the proportion of income from private patients to within existing limits will be a major disincentive for trusts to become foundation hospitals. Specifying a rigid limit on the proportion of private work could create extra problems for some hospitals.
I invite hon. Members to imagine a trust having its NHS income cut because a commissioner is moving work elsewhere. It would have to make a corresponding cut in its private patient income at a point when it is under pressure to cut budgets to make up for the lost NHS income to keep within the limit of private patient income as a proportion of total income. That would put further pressure on its budgets and would require it to create a fair system to decide which consultants have to cut back on which work. What purpose is served by this additional restriction on foundation trusts? This all seems a long way from a pragmatic, undogmatic approach to "public good, private bad". I thought that the Government were committed to pragmatic local decisions in the interests of NHS care.
It is interesting that the Under-Secretary of State for Health is leading the debate today. I suspect that she has been selected to speak about this newly emerging policy because she is one of the most eloquent and persuasive Ministers. However, when the logic of public health is to
6WH
pursue community initiatives to stress the importance of primary care facilities and partnerships, where it might be easier to justify foundation status, it is odd that the creation of foundation trusts will start with acute and specialist hospitals. Thus the focus will be on acute care, rather than on the real public health goals of the Government's NHS.
Mr. David Drew: I concur with my hon. Friend's remarks about our spokesperson on the Front Bench.
Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we seek mutuality in health care, we will need bottom-up rather than top-down solutions? Many of us would be happier if more effort were made in that area.
Ms Drown: I certainly agree with that.
I suspect that the Minister will say that fears about a two-tier service are unfounded, because there are already differing standards across the country, and there is currently a multi-tier service. That is true, but that multi-tier service has not been created in legislation. The Government are rightly trying to achieve consistent, high standards across the NHS. Foundation trust legislation would create two different structures for NHS hospitals, and Ministers have made it clear that one is considered to be better than the other. That raises concerns about unnecessary competition and divisiveness in the NHS.
I spoke earlier about the additional bureaucracy that will be created in pay structures. The reorganisation of the trusts and their commissioners involves extra bureaucracy that must be justified, because the time of civil servants and NHS staff could be better spent on other things, such as ensuring that the NHS plan is delivered for my South Swindon constituents as soon as possible.
Government documents show that extra support will be given to foundation trusts to pay for legal help for commissioners, who will have to arrange different contracts for the foundation trusts. We are spending time on the Floor of the House today and tomorrow debating the issue. Can we justify taking that time away from the delivery of quality services across the country? [Interruption.]
I am concerned that there is a bureaucracy creation machine in the Department of Health, a unit that wants change for change's sake, wants to ensure that there is always work for management consultants, and wants to keep the focus on organisational structures rather than on quality patient care. I know that Ministers care about the latter, but I wonder whether the former is getting the better of them. If so, the change for change's sake unit must be found and culled.
Will the Minister clarify the areas on which the commissioners will be negotiating with foundation trusts? Paragraph 1.34 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts" states that there will be longer-term, legally binding service agreements. I would like to know what period those agreements will be longer than, and what would happen if the commissioner did not want a longer-term agreement.
Finally, let us examine the response to the Government's proposals. I am sure that a number of trusts will be keen to take up this Government challenge.

7WH
I am delighted that 40 per cent. of the three-star trusts are in deprived areas. However, the creation of foundation trust status only for three-star hospitals does not help my constituents in Swindon, whether or not they live in a deprived area. The Government may say that the new freedoms will give us an incentive to improve in Swindon, but we do not need further incentives. Swindon's NHS is full of hard-working individuals who want to improve patient services.
The NHS Confederation, representing the managers' point of view, is concerned that decentralisation for the few could detract from the more important task of decentralisation for all, and that the proposals will move the focus away from acute care. The Labour party reaction is cold. The RCN is hinting, politely, that it is against the proposals, and the British Medical Association has raised many of the concerns that I have discussed today. There appears to be no support for the pay proposals.
I hope that the Minister can answer the questions that I have posed. There is much good in what Labour is doing for the NHS—massive investment, sensible reforms and a willingness to take the tough decisions that are sometimes needed. However, there is a danger that the reforms will be a major distraction from the main work of delivering the NHS plan. It would be easy for the Government to obtain consensus in Parliament and across the NHS on reducing control of the NHS by Whitehall. Why not make the reforms focus on more freedom for all, not just for the few?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Frank Cook (in the Chair): Order. First, I thank the Committee for treating my embarrassment over the mobile phone with such good humour. Clearly, I had failed to depress the button for the required two seconds: I am sorry. Secondly, the Committee will have noted my entry with a stick. Had I known that we were to debate foundation hospitals, I would have used crutches; my theatrical entrance was not intentional.
On a serious point, we have lost 13 minutes of debating time. Thanks to both Opposition spokesmen, who have agreed to cut their contributions by half, I am able to make an extraordinary rule to extend the debate by five minutes at the end, which could mean problems for subsequent debates. I therefore appeal to all right hon. and hon. Members to restrict comments to what is necessary, to avoid repetition, to make interventions in a sparing fashion and to conduct the debate in the constructive manner in which it has commenced. Only some of the hon. Members present have given me prior knowledge of their intention to contribute. For the moment, I call Mr. Lansley.
10.5 am
Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute and I congratulate the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) on securing the debate. As suggested by the choice of Opposition debate in the House tomorrow, the subject is timely. We all agree that it is important to debate this crucial subject early in the new year before legislation is introduced.
8WH
I represent two hospitals in South Cambridgeshire—Addenbrooke's, twice judged a three-star hospital in the performance ratings, and Papworth, a specialist cardio-thoracic trust. Specialist hospitals have been subject to the performance scheme only once and Papworth was given a three-star rating. The Commission for Health Improvement gave Papworth the highest rating of any hospital and singled out its excellent corporate and clinical governance.
By contrast with the constituents of the hon. Member for South Swindon, mine can see directly where the benefits lie if foundation hospitals, starting from a high base, deliver substantial increases in capacity and higher standards. My purpose is not to ask questions with a view to damning foundation hospitals with faint praise, but to make some points to ensure that foundation hospital policy works in the long as well as the short term.
I agree with the hon. Lady that it is not all about two-tier status. The NHS has different tiers, but the real question is how best to increase capacity and raise standards. Should it be done by moving everyone at the same pace, or should we accept that different hospitals have different attributes and that those with the strongest corporate and clinical governance should be given the first chance to introduce new approaches?
Several hon. Members may have been present at my Westminster Hall debate on nurses' pay two months ago. Taking Addenbrooke's as an example, I know that "Agenda for Change" is much sought after as a means of increasing pay flexibility and offering opportunities to adapt pay to labour market circumstances and the changing needs of the health service. Addenbrooke's wants to implement such a policy as early as possible.
I am not going to dwell on membership and the ownership of foundation hospitals. The issues are complicated. I certainly hope that good hospitals such as Addenbrooke's and Papworth, which already involve patient groups and the local community, will be able to do so more extensively under the new arrangements—but without excessive burdens. Some risks are associated with mutualisation, which could lead to substantial additional burdens.
It seems to me that the key issue is what the freedoms of foundation hospitals mean. Are they real and an end in themselves, or a means to an end? I submit that they are not real, that they should be extended over time and that they are not an end in themselves but a means to an end. We need to be aware of the end and to be able to adapt the whole system of foundation hospitals beyond the initial extension of freedoms from some bureaucratic controls.
I confess that, like the hon. Member for South Swindon, I am not sure how real the freedoms are. The establishment of an independent regulator is a new structure, but one that seems substantially to translate many of the controls that the Secretary of State might exercise over foundation hospitals into a different set of hands. The commission for healthcare audit and inspection, when it is established, will have similar controls. Complying with national clinical and quality standards does not give people in the hospitals that I represent any concern, but it does not necessarily mean bureaucratic reductions as a consequence. The control

9WH
of private services is a new control, and I suspect that the freedom to borrow, to which I will return in a moment, is a little more rhetorical than real.
The freedoms are not as great as they should be and could be made greater. I will not make a long series of points about that, but it is important that we do not see the NHS in isolation. We should look beyond it to what our experience tells us about the process of trying to stimulate enterprise in what have hitherto been monopoly services. Although we do not necessarily have to break up organisations to make them compete among themselves, by translating bureaucratic, Government and political control to independent regulation, as we have observed in other industries, we can achieve that aim if the independent regulator—whoever he or she may be—has a clear set of duties that point to stimulating enterprise and allowing freedoms to emerge over time. Experience of other fields of activity demonstrates that if the independent regulator is focused not on compliance but on standards, independent regulation outside political control with predictable, consistent decision taking that is transparent to those who are regulated can offer substantial benefits.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Am I to take it that the hon. Gentleman would like to recreate within the NHS the high standard of organisation and service that we find in the railway industry?
Mr. Lansley: The hon. Lady does not tempt me to speak about the transport industry; I want to speak about the NHS. My experience is less of transport than of other industries such as energy and telecommunications. My trade and industry background takes me in that direction.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Energy—there is a good one.
Mr. Lansley: I will not go down that route at length, but I can tell the hon. Lady that, in my experience, at different times in different industries the transfer from national ownership with direct control and intervention over matters such as borrowing to independent regulation where free companies are in a position to attract private capital in a more predictable structure of regulation has clearly been of benefit. It has allowed enterprising companies to deliver better services and greater capacity. The telecommunications industry in this country was transformed after 1984 as a consequence of telecommunications regulation as opposed to national ownership. I will not go further down that path.
My point is that the freedoms should be regarded as a starting point. When the Bill is published, the key issue for me will be the independent regulator's duties and whether they are structured in a way that drives towards the stated purposes and allows the independent regulator, if the foundation hospitals create and maintain high standards and improve on them, to progressively reduce bureaucratic compliance requirements. That is the issue, but the change is not an end in itself, as it concerns capacity. It seems to me that the foundation hospital structure is being created around the current necessity to build new capacity, rather than an attempt to create competition in the
10WH
NHS. That is fine at the moment. We cannot create competition in a structure where demand substantially exceeds supply in most circumstances.
Angela Eagle: Does the hon. Gentleman then believe that the way forward for the NHS is more competition under a market-style mechanism?
Mr. Lansley: The hon. Lady is trying to anticipate my argument.
Angela Eagle: No, I am asking a question.
Mr. Lansley: All right, I will answer it. In the long run, the way forward for the NHS is to deliver social enterprise. That will happen where enterprising providers are allied to a system directed not by monopoly purchasers, but by patient choice. That does not necessarily mean a market, and it certainly does not mean privatisation. [Laughter.] If the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) will forgive me, I will explain, but briefly because other hon. Members want to speak.
I want NHS funding to be allied to NHS standards of service, which providers will have to meet, and I want patient choice and enterprising providers to be brought together. Developments will need to be handled properly, and much more needs to be clearly set out, but foundation hospitals are developing in a way that will allow providers that get the private sector behind them to add capacity and be more enterprising.
At the same time, however, we still have monopoly purchasers, and we must think harder and more long term about that. If we merely end up with local primary care trusts making five-year agreements with monopoly purchasers in their area, what opportunity will there be to exercise patient choice? What opportunity will enterprising providers have to vary what they provide? Local communities will be told that they own the hospitals, but what opportunity will they have to vary provision?
The issue is how we introduce patient choice into the system. If we introduce it alongside a diversity of providers who have the freedom to take an enterprising and innovative approach, we can create an NHS that not only adds capacity, but improves standards. That relationship between choice on the part of patients and enterprise on the part of providers will deliver higher standards.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Frank Cook (in the Chair): Order. Five hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. There are only 28 minutes until I must call the Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople to begin their winding-up speeches. I therefore appeal to every hon. Member to make their remarks concise and pertinent.
10.16 am
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Mr. Cook, I shall be extremely brief. I had intended to go on at considerable length, because foundation hospitals are probably one of the worst ideas that the Government have come up with, and that inspires an articulate response in me.

11WH
We should congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) on setting out, in considerable detail and very concisely, the objections to foundation hospitals. I hope that the Government will think again. My hon. Friend thinks that a unit somewhere in the Department may be eternally looking for change, but I think that the problem is worse than that. Why do the Government persist with this bizarre idea when they are faced with the appalling example of what is happening in the transport industry, where services work only if they are planned in a proper and co-ordinated way? One can only assume that someone somewhere has a quite disastrous commitment to encouraging private medicine in this country. The Government are talking not only about attracting long-term private sector schemes but about planning to put out to tender only to certain foreign companies services that must remain in the NHS.
I want to say just one thing this morning. I originally came into contact with the NHS through my family 30 years ago, when there was a real division between teaching hospitals, specialist hospitals and district general hospitals. The level of care is now infinitely better, and the quality of services is nothing like what we could have envisaged 30 years ago. None the less, we consistently run the service down and say that it is poor and unacceptable. If that is the case, we should not introduce more divisive measures, which is what the creation of foundation hospitals is. We should not divide one group of staff from another by introducing an absurd bureaucracy that makes each hospital fight for the terms, conditions and wages of its staff. We should not suggest that there is somehow a halfway house between private medicine and the national health service, such that foundation hospitals will not be able to earn so much money that they will in effect be fully privatised units.
We should also say strongly that the people of this country do not want large surgical factories, which push them through and out the other side, like so many sausages. People do not want a system in which some hospitals can attract staff, money, investment and support, while the others are allowed to sink into a mire of disillusion and abandonment. Very simply, they want high-quality diagnostic centres that provide high-quality services. People want involvement with their local community, but do not think that that is provided by the old-style, local committees that I remember from my youth, on to which anyone with a title was allowed, whereas anyone who had been locally elected was regarded as a totally unacceptable candidate.
People want a national health service for which new forms of development are considered, but not those that entail division, an absurd bureaucracy, or contract procedures that require management consultants, hangers-on, accountants or anyone who happens to come along. In the transport industry, one can see what that means, in terms of expenditure, inadequacy and poor services for the public. At some point, I shall make a long speech on foundation hospitals, but this morning I am grateful that we are beginning the debate.
I do not know who in the Government is pushing private medicine and relationships with private firms abroad, or who thinks that we have anything to learn
12WH
from private, American medical centres, but such people need to be disabused. There are some things that the ordinary member of the Labour party will not accept: such proposals are pretty high up the list.
10.22 am
Mr. David Tredinnick: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) on securing the first debate of the new year. It is interesting to have the year rung in, as it were, by mobile telephones, Mr. Cook.
The debate started somewhat tardily. In the spirit of keeping my remarks short, I shall skip most of my speech and start where it says, "I shall return to governance". I intended to say that I supported some of the measures, although we shall have to take a radical look at how services are provided in the new hospitals, if they proceed. In particular, I draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that the Government's guidelines stress that local stakeholders should be given
"real opportunities to influence the overall stewardship of the Trust and its strategic development."
One in five people in this country now use complementary and alternative medical—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Yes, it is predictable that I should raise that subject. I accept that point. If there is to be more local input and less top-down management, it is inevitable that more people on those boards are going to demand such services.
The thrust of my argument is to say to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), that it now behoves the Government to develop a strategy that will enable foundation hospitals to deploy more effectively many of the therapies that can not only reduce the bill of the health service but give doctors greater freedom, give patients better services, and build on some of the work that has already been done, not least by the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton). He uses complementary medicine himself and has recognised the positive contribution made by such therapies. He—I think it is he, unless it is the Minister—has been instrumental in introducing NICE guidelines for next year and setting up the Sheffield study, which is examining how such therapies work.
Ministers like to wax eloquent, sometimes in response to debates that I have initiated, about the King's Fund project, led by Westminster university, to create a network of primary care trusts that will use complementary therapies based on good governance. What they have not mentioned is that the clinical director of the school of integrated health at Westminster university is Dr. David Peters, a distinguished doctor who is also involved in the Marylebone health centre, which has pioneered an integrated health service and published a book for doctors explaining how to integrate complementary therapies into primary care. That practical guide for health professionals was produced by several distinguished doctors, who considered all aspects of how complementary therapies could be integrated.
Perhaps I shall be able to develop my point further in tomorrow's debate, if I am lucky enough to catch the Speaker's eye. However, the fact that there is now a

13WH
working model that can be deployed in new hospitals makes the Minister's task so much easier. I encourage her to look at the work being done at Marylebone health centre and to consider ways of applying it in the new foundation hospitals. On that point, I rest my case.
10.26 am
Ms Joan Walley: I wish you a healthy new year, Mr. Cook, and want to say how pleased I am that this debate is taking place because it gives us the opportunity to flag up issues of importance to Parliament. I am as disappointed as anyone that we have so little time to give the speeches that many of us have prepared. Westminster Hall is rapidly becoming the place where important issues are raised. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), knows my constituency well and understands the health inequalities that we face in north Staffordshire. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) made an authoritative, courageous and fully informed speech, and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider all the issues that she raised because I suspect that, if the truth be known, what she described is mirrored in constituencies around the country.
I appreciate all that the Government have done to improve health care. If improvements are needed anywhere, they are needed in Stoke-on-Trent, North. There are prospects of a new training centre and a new hospital in my constituency, but there is considerable progress to be made following the years of under-investment by Conservative Governments. How do we take forward the huge improvements that we have already seen? I do not believe that foundation hospitals, in precisely the form that has been put to Parliament, are the way forward. On Sunday, I spoke to a constituent who told me about her five-month wait for a cataract out-patient appointment, followed by a further four-month wait, which meant that she decided to spend virtually all her life savings on having the operation done privately and, even then, had only one cataract operated on.
My priority and that of my constituents is to take forward the agenda for change and modernisation and to ensure that we build on the real commitment of all our NHS workers to improve health care in the secondary sector, in our hospitals, in primary care and in services ancillary to medicine. I understand the point that has been made about complementary therapies. We must look to see how improvements in public health and healthier lifestyles, as well as all the Government's attempts to deal with poverty and inequality, can underpin and reinforce the work that is done in hospitals and in the primary care sector. That is where Ministers' priorities should be, whether they are Treasury or Health Ministers. They should be working with PCT staff to ensure that they know what is needed and can cut through red tape and bureaucracy. Mutual ownership should be introduced locally in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) mentioned, so that we can make progress. Foundation hospitals are not the way forward. I hope that the debate will comfort my hon. Friend the Minister and strengthen her negotiating position in further discussions within the Government.
14WH
I am full of praise for the three years' work that has been done in respect of "Agenda for Change". Many hours have been spent in drawing up a new negotiating position for our national health service workers. Speaking as a member of Unison, I do not want to see that work undone or lack of agreement on it because of the Government's position on foundation hospitals. Will the Minister address the points about pay that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon? Have the Government considered the possible consequences of equal value claims? Will we really allow foundation trusts to pay whatever rates they want to? How will that link in with the good work of the three-year "Agenda for Change" process, under which, with a few exceptions, negotiated positions have been reached? I look forward to the Minister's response.
10.31 am
Linda Gilroy: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown), who has brought her long experience to bear on an issue that is of concern to all of us. She mentioned the huge strengths of the NHS, the public support for those who use or might need to use it, the public service commitment of those who work in it and the value to the public purse of that ethos. She also mentioned weaknesses, such as the inequalities that my hon. Friend the Minister and I have to address in our constituencies. A man from the inner-city part of Plymouth, Sutton is likely to die 10 years earlier than a man from the leafy suburbs. She also mentioned the frustrations of dealing with red tape and bureaucracy.
This morning, as this year's chairman of the Co-operative group of MPs, I want to advance the case for the mutual model and to show how, through foundation hospitals, we can build on the strengths and address the weaknesses of the NHS. There is a saying, "Tell me, I'll forget. Show me, I'll remember. Involve me, and I'll understand." My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) mentioned the importance of a bottom-up approach. Mutual models provide frameworks that allow local people to be involved on a much more meaningful scale than they are now. My hon. Friend the Minister has a clear and broad understanding of the track record, strengths and potential of mutual models through her service on the Co-operative Commission. I congratulate her on her contribution to the Mutuo publication "Making Healthcare Mutual—a publicly funded, locally accountable NHS." I hope that she will forgive me if I particularly recommend to those who are less familiar with the development of 21st century mutual models the contribution of Cliff Mills in the third part of the document.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Is my hon. Friend aware that recent history shows us that mutual societies are not in any way sacrosanct and can be destroyed by the activities of others?
Linda Gilroy: I understand my hon. Friend's point, which I will address in a moment, but I am talking about new 21st century mutual models.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will draw fully on her experience of the mutual sector through the Co-operative Commission. Will she address four matters in particular? First, new mutuals need special

15WH
skills backed up by advice from established mutual societies who know what works and what does not work as regards governance structures and development, elections, elected member training and mentoring. Secondly, will she consider the application of mutual models to organisations that are not success stories? Mutuals have a strong track record in phoenix rescues of failing organisations—both social and business enterprises. Thirdly, will she consider the application of mutual models and principles to other parts of the health community? By doing that in primary and preventive health care, we can empower individuals to play more effective roles in corporate governance. Fourthly, my hon. Friend the Minister is enthusiastic about expert patient schemes, and I hope that she will draw on one of the richest traditions in mutual principle and experience—that is, education—by linking the NHS academy proposals to the experience of the Co-operative college, which has, for instance, developed NVQ 1, 2 and 3-level distance learning packages for housing management.
I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend's response. Her constituency faces many similar challenges in relation to regeneration and inequalities, and no one is better placed to tackle them through the mutual models that I have described.
10.36 am
Mr. David Drew: I shall be brief to allow time for the concluding speeches. I congratulate all hon. Members on their presentation of the case, and I want to add a few points. We should be able to move away from the rather sterile debate on whether we should rely on the traditional NHS model or privatise it, because, as my fellow Co-operator just said, there is a different way.
We have considered trusts and acute hospitals in relation to the potential mutualisation of some aspects of health services.
Angela Eagle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most interesting area for developing such an approach is not acute hospitals but primary care trusts?
Mr. Drew: I agree entirely. Some in the Co-operative movement have said that we should have started by considering the application of mutual models to PCTs.
It is possible to see in the Government's document some of the principles of co-operation, including the devolution of power and practical models of public service delivery, which is what all Labour Members should be about. For 13 years, I have been involved in a site in my constituency—Standish hospital, which delivers acute facilities in the county of Gloucestershire. It will close in 2004; I shall not reopen the debate on whether it should close. With colleagues, I have recently worked on a mutual solution by which the site could be taken on by a community land trust to provide a different type of health care—not only for the immediate area but for the whole region. I shall approach the Minister and her colleagues in the Department to discuss specific matters such as alternative and complementary care, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), diagnostic and treatment centres, intermediate care, and services for older people with behavioural problems.
16WH
When an NHS site becomes available it is analysed and evaluated. More often than not it has no potential use in the NHS, so it is put up for sale. I am challenging that in respect of this site. We would like to look at mutual solutions. I hope that the Government are allowing that to happen, rather than coming up with top-down solutions. Let the community see whether new models could be brought forward within the NHS, because the NHS should be the main provider on a site such as that in my constituency. We should also consider how that could—dare I say it—link with the private sector. That is my plea.
I have already said that our spokesperson is a great Co-operator. The debate is in danger of becoming a graveyard, and I hope that we can move away from that and open up opportunities. That will, however, take time. The NHS is not good at considering alternative solutions—that is its greatest weakness. I am beginning to get some interest from the NHS community, but it has been a devil of a job. Many doors have been shut. If I were not a Member of Parliament, they would have been not only shut but bolted and I would be outside the loop for ever and a day.
We must encourage people in the NHS to think about different ways of delivering the service. I intend to introduce a proposal on that in my constituency. I hope that my hon. Friend will take the opportunity to visit us and listen to what we are trying to do. That might provide a better way forward and it might be better than having what I regard as a rather sterile debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Frank Cook (in the Chair): Order. I shall be looking to the Minister to commence the Government's response at five minutes to the hour and conclude by five minutes past. I therefore expect the Opposition Members who wind up to split the time equally.
10.41 am
Dr. Evan Harris: I am aware of the time issue. This is the first of two Opposition debates on this subject and we will have the opportunity to speak further tomorrow. [HON. MEMBERS: "No thanks to you."] That is the point. One debate has been initiated by a Labour Member and the other by the Conservative party. As we shall see, a curious feature of the direction of the Government and the Conservative party is that there is very little between them.
The Government should take note that senior Back-Bench opposition to the proposals goes beyond the usual suspects. It is, however, reasonable to say that the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown), whom I congratulate on securing the debate, is not a usual suspect. The hon. Lady has generally been loyal and she is also an experienced finance director. I know that she is a tough negotiator. I found that out when I was on the opposite side of the table to her during talks on junior doctors' hours. Her expertise is respected in many areas of health, including maternity services. The Government should take note of that.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), is not only eloquent but capable of packing that eloquence into 10 minutes,

17WH
which is better than some others. I do not have her ability to do that, but I want to respond to the points that were raised by the hon. Member for South Swindon. I apologise to other hon. Members because I will not have a chance to comment on points that they have made in this excellent debate.
The hon. Lady mentioned the Government's motivation for bringing in these measures. First, they want to use financial incentives to improve the NHS. I agree with the hon. Lady that in that they fundamentally misunderstand the motives of NHS workers. Those people do not do their best so that a trust may be more financially successful; they do their best within their professional competence for patients. It is disappointing, to say the least, that the Government take that view. The second motive is, allegedly, to stop the Tories privatising the NHS. The Government and, in this respect, the hon. Member for South Swindon have missed the point. The private provision of NHS services is not the greatest threat to the NHS. No matter who provides it, the NHS stands for a service that is free at the point of delivery, which is paid for through general taxation and is comprehensive, regardless of the ability to pay.
The issue is not whether there are more private or voluntary sector deliverers, or whether there is increased private commissioning and purchasing in the NHS. I disagree with the hon. Member for South Swindon on pay beds in the NHS. Those are more of a threat because they use vital capacity for people who can afford it, rather than for those who cannot. The Conservative party has suggested previously that patients should be charged.
Linda Gilroy: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that people's reservations and opposition to privatisation are based also on profits, which go outside of the NHS?
Dr. Harris: Indeed.
Mr. Burns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to rebut me later in his speech.
Mr. Burns: On that point—
Dr. Harris: No, I cannot give way now. The hon. Member for South Swindon said that foundation hospitals would be able to keep the income from land sales. That seems unfair, given that they may be sitting on land in a way that other hospitals are not. Since they did not inherit the land by dint of being managers of a foundation hospital, the income should be shared more equally.
The hon. Lady said that the Government's other motivation was their desire not to run everything from Whitehall, or at least to give the appearance of not doing so. I believe that it is a matter of appearance. She drew attention to several worries, most of which I share. The measures are divisive. The ridiculous star-rating system is not based on sensible clinical outcomes; it often runs contrary to the more reasonable measures of performance such as the in-depth studies undertaken by the Commission for Health Improvement.
18WH
The measures are a way in which to create a league table to enable the Government to allocate blame for failures in the health service to those who are at the bottom of the table. As I know from the excellent five-star hospital in my constituency, failure is due not to poor performance or incompetence but to inadequate capacity, the inability of social services to place people and a shortage of nurses. That is why no-star trusts are found in areas where there is a shortage of staff, which delays discharges.
The hon. Lady said that she was concerned about the absence of performance management. However, she can be reassured because the Government are not letting go; foundation hospitals will still be subject to targets. Commissioners will have to commission according to targets and through the Commission for Health Improvement, which is not independent because it must inspect according to the Government's targets.
As for local pay, the Government are seeking to be all things to all people. At the same time as saying that local pay will be flexible, they say nonsensically that there will be no poaching. We have many worries about the proposals. They are based on continued structural change, not real reform. They concentrate too much on the side of the providers rather than commissioning in respect of democratisation. They are divisive and attempt to devolve blame, not freedom.
10.47 am
Mr. Simon Burns: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) on initiating this important and timely debate. In many ways, it is the hors d'oeuvre for the main banquet tomorrow. In what was an elegant speech, I congratulate the hon. Lady on the clever way in which she walked the neat tightrope between outright rebellion and seemingly constructive criticism of her Government's actions.
It has been fascinating listening to all the contributions to the debate, but particularly those from Labour Members. The illustrious and formidable hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) gave an extremely interesting, robust speech. I hope that she will catch Mr. Speaker's eye tomorrow when she will have a greater opportunity to elaborate her views. With one exception, it was noticeable that no Labour Member seemed to support the Government's action. We must bear it in mind that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) is a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the office of the Deputy Prime Minister, unless she has recently resigned or been replaced.
Linda Gilroy: The hon. Gentleman is right, but I am here today in my capacity as the current chair of the strong parliamentary Co-operative group.
Mr. Burns: However much the Government have modernised matters in other ways, I assume that the code of conduct for Parliamentary Private Secretaries is the same as under previous Governments and that they are bound by collective responsibility. One would not expect them to criticise their own Government's policies in a debate, because Parliamentary Private Secretaries are linked into that responsibility, as are Ministers.

19WH
The Opposition support the general principle of foundation hospitals and the freeing of hospitals within the NHS. However, we have considerable difficulties with the way in which the Government seek to move that agenda forward. We will have a better opportunity tomorrow to analyse the policy in greater detail. We believe that hospital freedom should be a priority because the most important factor within the NHS is to ensure that it thrives to provide the highest and best quality care for patients. I emphasise, so that there can be no misunderstanding or slurs from the Liberal Democrats, that that care must be free at the point of use for patients. That is what I have always supported and will continue to support in my future political career—if I have one.
I part company with the Government on one issue, however. As the hon. Member for South Swindon rightly said, in the early stages—which tend to be rather long—the Government will restrict the opportunity of foundation hospital status to three-star hospitals. That is a significant and fundamental error. It will create a two-tier health system, regardless of what Ministers within the Department of Health may say.
The Government should have been bold. At the Labour party conference last year, the Prime Minister himself said that the Government were best when at their boldest. They are not being bold: they are being timid, which is a weakness. I suspect the reason for that timidity. We must not forget that foundation hospitals are the brainchild of the Prime Minister. However, as always with this Government, a shadow is cast over No. 10 from the neighbour at No. 11.
We know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not at all keen on the Prime Minister's big idea or on the Secretary of State for Health's pursuing it. One gets the impression that the Chancellor would like to emasculate the policy at birth. The policy is in the best interests of the NHS and enhanced patient care, but I urge the Government to extend it from the outset to all hospitals. All should have the opportunity to be foundation hospitals, rather than some getting the fast-track treatment because they have three-star status and the vast majority being excluded. That will create a two-tier system.
Time does not allow me to go into the minutiae, but in December the Government published "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts", in an attempt to flesh out details of the Government's proposals in the absence of published legislation. The trouble is, as the hon. Member for South Swindon highlighted in a series of relevant questions, that the document raises more questions than it answers. Statements, proposals and ideas in the document directly conflict with what the Secretary of State said in previous statements when announcing the movement forward on foundation hospitals. Due to the time constraints, I cannot reiterate the concerns, conflicts and outstanding questions that require answers, but the hon. Member for South Swindon did so. I hope that the Minister will use the time that she has available to her to treat the debate with the relevance that it deserves, and that she will answer as many of the hon. Lady's questions as possible rather than simply read out a brief,
20WH
as I fear that she will, that tells us how wonderful foundation hospitals—as the Government propose them—will be for our health.
10.55 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I am delighted to respond to the first debate of the new year, which I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) on securing. I have never been referred to as an hors d'oeuvre before, but we shall have several opportunities to discuss these important issues both over the next few weeks and when the legislation comes before the House. I am genuinely pleased that we have started that process. My hon. Friend raised a series of important points, and I shall endeavour to reply to as many as I can. However, I can tell every hon. Member who made a contribution that I shall take on board all points that were made as the debate unfolds and the policy develops.
First, I want to set the context of the changes. We all have to acknowledge that we have had the biggest ever increase in investment in the national health service and that improvements are starting to come through on waiting, getting more staff and equipment and reducing deaths due to cancer and coronary heart disease. All those things in the NHS plan, to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon referred, represent an incredibly ambitious programme for this country's health service. All Labour Members have made it clear that they welcome the investment and the changes that are going on, and recognise the contribution made by NHS staff in delivering the improvements. That is the context in which we are introducing foundation trusts and extending new forms of ownership and social enterprise in the health service generally.
My hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) made the important point that the policy is not limited to the acute sector of the NHS. I hope that it will permeate everything that is done in the NHS during the months and years to come. There should be a broad range of providers, and we should encourage enterprise in local communities so that we can provide services that are more responsive and accessible to patients whom we serve.
We must have reform to go with that massive investment if we are to ensure that we get maximum value from every single extra pound that we put in. If the Government ask the public to pay extra money to fund the NHS, it is our responsibility to ensure that the investment has the maximum impact. The public should see increased capacity and a reduction in waiting times. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) said that she had talked to a constituent who had had to wait for a cataract operation. The public's top priority is waiting and, therefore, the challenge that we all face is creating extra capacity and new ways of doing things. We must spread modernisation throughout the system so that patients can move through the system more quickly while still receiving high-quality services. The proposed reforms come from a need to increase capacity and treat patients more quickly.
Until 1997, we did not have the kind of national health service that we are trying to create. We talk glibly about the NHS as if it was a national uniform service.

21WH
However, most hon. Members recognise that before 1997 the service was a collection of organisations that functioned differently, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said. Since 1997, we have introduced the National Institute of Clinical Excellence, the Commission for Health Improvement, national service frameworks and the NHS plan. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon asked whether this was the right time to go forward with further reforms. I absolutely believe that it is, because a series of national standards is in place for the first time, meaning that people up and down the country know that they are all entitled to the same level of service. We have shifted the balance of power, and have given power to the primary care trusts; that will provide security of long-term commissioning. Those are the foundations that had to be put in place, and it is the right time to proceed apace with faster, more radical and deeper reform.
Foundation trusts give us the chance to have the best of both worlds. They give us national standards together with local community-based ownership. That, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud says, is a means of getting away from the sterile, polarised and adversarial arguments either that the existing system is good enough or that it is not and there must be outright privatisation. Things do not have to be that way; we can have national standards with local community ownership. That will unleash creativity and innovation within the service and keep a key local connection not just with communities but with the rest of the NHS.
The new foundation trusts will be under a duty of partnership to work with every other part of the NHS, including primary care, social care, and the public health service. The foundation trusts will not be free-floating entities somewhere up in the ether; they will be connected to the rest of the service. They will also have a duty to exercise their freedoms in a way that does not undermine or damage the rest of the NHS. The foundation trusts will be drawn into the same system, but will have freedom and flexibility to push forward with the modernisation and change that all hon. Members recognise is needed if people are to be treated more quickly and given a higher standard of service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton referred to the models set out in the guide. Those models build on co-operative themes and principles and on mutual traditions. I was a member of the Co-operative Commission for 12 months, during which we explored not just the successes of the Co-operative movement but, crucially, its risks and its failings. We are not going into the project with rose-tinted glasses. We know that mutual models can present difficulties and need special support. If local people are to be involved, there must be a great deal more emphasis on education, training,
22WH
citizenship, governance, and working with the Co-operative college. I take all those points on board, and those are issues that we want to pursue.
I want to make two distinctions between our policy approach and that of the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). The Tories should be open and honest about their view; however, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) has been a little too honest for his comfort. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) made a reasoned argument, and the hon. Member for West Chelmsford wanted to put on record his personal commitment to a service free at the point of use, but the hon. Member for Woodspring is on record as saying that he wants to raise money—perhaps by means of health insurance—through self-pay.
Hon. Members should be under no illusion; their agreement with the foundation trust principle is about keeping the NHS connected to local communities and within public community ownership. The Tories' agenda is very much about self-pay and making sure that there are a variety of purchasers, and would lead us back to a two-tier system. That is the first distinction.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon seems to want localism and diversity at the expense of all national standards. The policy has to proceed in the context of national standards. People pay for a national health service; they want to know that they can get the same services wherever they are. Diversity and decentralisation must be married with good national standards and a national framework. That is the second distinction between our approach and that of the Opposition.
Concerns about a two-tier system are at the heart of the issue. Our policy on foundation trusts is about being on a journey, not about a destination for a few, leaving behind the rest of the system. The policy is about saying that in time we want everyone to have the freedoms, flexibility, innovation and creativity that the system will set in train. It is absolutely right that we should start with the best performers, because that way we can manage the risk of this very big change—make no mistake, this is a bold policy. It is right to want to manage that risk in an incremental way.
Organisations that are not yet at the level of the best need extra help. We want to be able to concentrate on supporting them in order to bring everyone up to the standards of the best. Our policy is about promoting excellence for everybody, not about setting hospital against hospital. It is about having a duty of partnership, but getting energy, creativity and dynamism into the system, so that we can make a significant change for the people who pay for, use and work for the services, and who, at the end of the day, will be running and owning them too. That is an exciting prospect, and I look forward to the debate continuing.

Regional Policy
11.4 am
Adam Price: Before I begin my speech, I wish to draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that I am a director of an economics consultancy, as is set out in the Register of Members' Interests.
Regional issues have moved up the political agenda over the past two years, so it is fitting that we are discussing regional policy so early in the new Parliamentary year. Since the previous Parliament the Government have radically redefined their position on regional policy. Three years ago the Prime Minister, armed with a Cabinet Office report, declared that the very idea of a north-south divide was misleading and misplaced—but since then the Government have had to accept the undeniable evidence that there are significant regional economic disparities, and they have even set themselves the target of reducing those disparities over the long term. It therefore came as a surprise to read that Mr. Ed Balls of the Treasury was back in regional divide denial mode. Just before Christmas, he told a conference in Leeds that there were vacancies in every part of the country: in Sheffield, Wakefield and Bradford—and, no doubt, in Pontefract and Castleford. However, I hazard a guess that the vacancies in Leeds, North-West, Halifax and Hull, North were at the forefront of his mind.
Most Members present would accept—at least in private—that the United Kingdom economy is deeply divided and that those divisions are widening. That was all but admitted in a remarkably candid Treasury publication produced at the time of the pre-Budget report of 2001, which set out what the Government have dubbed their new regional policy. The Government are more honest about the regional divide than ever before, and more focused on it. They have even talked about bridging the growth gap by the time of the next general election. However, the problem is that the policies that have so far been espoused neither bear any relation to the scale of the problem nor offer any realistic hope of providing a solution to it. In other words, the Government have willed the ends without willing the means, and I wish to explore that contradiction.
To put the matter in the simplest terms, the northern half of the UK is poorer than the south, and it is getting still poorer. According to the OECD, the UK has a higher level of inequality of prosperity between its territories than every other OECD country except Mexico. That prompted the TUC to claim that the UK was suffering greater regional equality than parts of the third world. Even the Government's own figures, from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's state of the region tables, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs' regional quality of life indicators and the Department of Trade and Industry's regional competitive index, all point to a persistent gap between the economic performance of northern regions and the UK as a whole.
Until the mid 1970s regional inequality was diminishing. However, that gap has grown again over the past 25 years, and has become a gulf. The figures are startling: in the mid 1970s no British region had GDP levels lower than four fifths of the south-east average,
24WH
but by 1999 no British region outside the prosperous inner core had value added levels as high as four fifths of those in the south-east. In the north—the north-east and north-west taken together—GDP per head fell from 86 per cent. of the south-eastern level in 1975 to only 70 per cent. in 1999; in Wales it fell from 81 per cent. to 66 per cent.
In 1997 it was widely thought that the incoming Labour Administration would adopt a more redistributionist approach to economic policy that would help to slow, if not arrest, the growing disparities in wealth and economic performance between south-east England and the rest of the UK—but the opposite has been the case. A recently published competitiveness index for the UK shows that the three best performing regions—London and the south-eastern and eastern regions—have widened their lead over the three worst by more than 30 per cent. since 1997, and that the gap between London and the north-east has grown by more than 35 per cent.
It is true that regional differences in claimant count unemployment have narrowed, and they are now at their lowest levels for 30 years. Ministers have often used that as evidence that the UK has solved its regional problem, and the north-south divide is dead. That is a deeply flawed and dishonest argument, because, as Labour knew all too well in opposition, the claimant count data seriously underestimate the true extent of joblessness in the economy as a whole, and in the weaker regions in particular.
As the recent study by researchers at Sheffield Hallam university and the university of Warwick has shown, the official unemployment count excludes about 2 million people who were parked on sickness benefit, pushed into retirement or prevented from claiming jobseeker's allowance. Hidden unemployment masks a more severe north-south divide than that which shows up in the official figures. The rate of real unemployment in Liverpool, Glasgow, and parts of the north-east and south Wales is running at more than 20 per cent., compared to about 3 per cent. in the south. The scale of the challenge is clear. The question remains whether the policies are sufficient to the task.
The so-called new regional policy is based on the idea of indigenous development and at its core has been the creation, in England, of the regional development agencies, which have been given the task of raising the regions from below. However, regional policy was not, classically, a matter of raising regions from below, or of their lifting themselves up by their bootstraps. It was a matter of redistributing wealth and activity between regions. If the new regional policy is based on what Ed Balls famously dubbed post-neoclassical endogenous growth theory, the old regional policy was social democratic and Keynesian. Its focus was on the ideal of territorial equity.
The Government's commitment to that ideal remains unclear, because they reject classical regional policy, which they say was based on subsidy and failure. It may have been crude, and it was certainly expensive, but regional policy in the 1960s and 1970s was certainly no failure. In a relatively short time a new layer of industry was grafted on to places such as the north-east of England, south Wales and central Scotland, along with

25WH
motorways, new towns and other infrastructure to support them. That process created hundreds of thousands of jobs in the areas of greatest need.
Many of the firms that were diverted into the assisted areas in the late 1940s, or in the 1960s and 1970s, are still there today. Morgan Marine in my constituency was attracted to Llandybie in 1967 and is now the largest private sector employer in the area. The end—or, as I like to think of it, the beginning—of the M4 is the last place where a supplier of prefabricated sheds for utility companies, often requiring a police escort for delivery, should be located. It is there as a direct result of what Mr. Balls has disparagingly called ambulance chasing, but I prefer to see as intelligent intervention.
Unfortunately, the policy of active relocation of industry was one of the early victims of the oil crisis, and latterly of Thatcherism. Between 1975 and 1995 the real value of UK regional aid was reduced to less than one ninth of its 1975 level, and it has remained at that level ever since. Solving the regional problem outright would have required three times the number of jobs that were actually created in the 1960s. However, at least a serious attempt at convergence was made, with funding on a scale far better than anything in new Labour's new regional policy. It worked for a while—but then the mechanisms were dismantled and the north-south divided opened up again.
The Government have set themselves a target of closing the growth gap, but, apart from the rhetoric, no formal policy or sustainable strategy is in place for achieving that ambitious objective. The new regional policy does not deal with the north-south divide. It could well exacerbate, rather than alleviate, the disparities, precisely because it is designed to raise regional growth across the board, rather than to make improvements in the north relative to the south. If the new regional policy were really intended to bridge the divide, regional development agencies would have been created only in the north. The same would be true of the regional venture capital funds.
The fact is that the Government will not acknowledge in clear and unambiguous terms the need for explicitly discriminatory measures to encourage development in regions that are lagging behind. If the issue were not so serious, it would be comical to suggest that depressed regions could somehow regenerate themselves from within, against the backdrop of the overwhelming economic dominance of the south-east.
London and its dormitory regions have captured the science base and the trained human capital that are the key drivers of competitiveness in the knowledge economy. Proportionately, London has three times as many graduates as the north-east. In the east and south-east, spending on research and development is about 3 per cent. of regional GDP, but in the north-east it is only 1 per cent. That is partly due to the fact that there is currently no Government research and development expenditure in the north-east. Wales fares little better.
This is a "winner takes all" economy. Successful regions in the south can continually add to their existing advantage by attracting more, and better-qualified, workers, while poorly performing regions are locked into a vicious circle of underdevelopment. Adopting a policy of refusing to intervene in the location decisions
26WH
of firms condemns those of us who live in the separate countries and the regions of the north, not to the status quo, but to a worsening spiral of decline.
Mr. Wayne David: The hon. Gentleman is developing his thesis. Is it not a problem that the competition rules of the European Union, of which Britain is an integral part, work against the kind of strategy that he suggests?
Adam Price: There is a debate at the moment about renationalising regional policy, but that would bring its own set of problems. During the Thatcherite period, European regional policy provided us with an alternative and some degree of alleviation, and I am keen to protect that possibility. As I understand it, we are way below the level of state aid to regions that would be allowed under European rules. There is significant scope for the budget available for regional aid to be increased radically. I will return to European competition policy later.
My case may be dismissed in some quarters as special pleading, but the reality is that regional disparities hurt us all. As the Treasury has pointed out in its report on the new regional policy, regional inequalities can exacerbate macro-economic volatility. With economic growth so heavily focused in the south-east, firms run into bottlenecks and that leads to inflationary pressures. That happened in the United Kingdom in the late 1980s, when an inflated property market and high levels of debt in the south-east and London turned an expansion into a severe recession. Hon. Members will be forgiven for feeling a frisson of déjà vu.
The same spatial disparity explains the two-speed economy of service boom and manufacturing bust that we have experienced over the past six or seven years. Inflationary pressures generated in the overheating south-east have prompted higher interest rates and a higher exchange rate, which have limited output in the under-heated northern economy. We all remember the public relations gaffe made by the retiring Governor of the Bank of England, who said that higher unemployment in the north was a price worth paying to keep inflation in the south under control.
London itself has a price to pay. The capital may have cornered the market in top-paying jobs, but it cannot provide a matching quality of life. The rising cost of accommodation forces people to make longer and longer journeys, and staff shortages in the public sector have an impact on the general quality of life. Without an active regional policy, there will continue to be an inexorable tilt of population and resources towards an already overcrowded region in the south. That in turn will add to congestion, increase the pressures for greenfield development, push up house prices even further and overload an already overstretched public sector.
Mr. David Drew: That is the crux of the matter. The difficulty with traditional regional policy is that it does not take account of the fact that regions are not homogeneous. My region, the south-west, which on paper is one of the better-off regions, contains Cornwall, which has the lowest GDP per head in the country. Surely regional policy has to reflect that situation by moving resources within regions. I accept that the south

27WH
east is a particular problem because its economy is overheated, but because we cannot move resources from the south-east to the north we need to be more sophisticated within the regions. Surely that is what the hon. Gentleman should be talking about.
Adam Price: Those options are not mutually exclusive. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the data prove that disparities both between regions—the north-south divide—and within regions are growing. That is why we need a combination of regional economic planning and local economic development strategies. Wales is a national microcosm of exactly the same problems. The overheating in the south-east of Wales, which is caused by a concentration of economic activity, is to the detriment of other regions. Disparities occur between regions and within regions, and we need both sets of policies.
Throughout the history of regional policy, it has been axiomatic that the problems of underdevelopment and overdevelopment are two sides of the same coin. The Barlow commission was set up just before the second world war to prevent unbalanced development and to investigate those issues. It concluded that the congestion problems in London and the south-east and the limited opportunities in other regions were two parts of the same problem. Its core concept, which provided the rationale for the regional policies that had such an impact in later years, was to control growth in the south-east and to direct it to other areas. Barlow was to territorial equity what Beveridge was to social justice. It is arguable that the present Government have killed off both Beveridge and Barlow—but at least Beveridge, unlike Barlow, has been given a decent burial.
The Crow report on regional planning guidance in south-east England, which set out the agenda to let growth rip regardless of the consequences for either sustainability in the south or deprivation in the north, is the praxis for regional policy to date. It is scandalous that the Government are considering building more than 1 million houses in southern England when cities such as Liverpool and Manchester are clearly underpopulated. Building houses to ease house prices in the south-east is like easing traffic by building extra lanes on the M25: in the end, one ends up with greater congestion, greater environmental destruction as new homes are built on the green belt, and traffic nudging closer to gridlock. In George Monbiot's words, the Government seem to have resigned themselves to setting Britain's regional inequalities in stone by letting the south-east build the towns required to house the north's economic refugees.
The argument for redistribution is as strong today as it was in the 1940s because unequal economic growth across the UK regions is a major factor in economic instability and environmental damage. Balanced growth is the key to achieving the Government's stated aim of sustainable growth, but that assumes that they practise joined-up thinking as well as preaching it. The chances of denting the north-south divide are remote when they are planning to build a fifth terminal at Heathrow, and those chances will be remoter still if their regional policy sticks to the principle of treating unequal regions equally. The key issues are whether they are prepared to
28WH
embrace a policy of positive discrimination in favour of the most deprived regions, and the form that such a policy would take.
The Government's defence is that we operate in a global economy, so if one contains growth in Brighton it will go not to Bridlington but Barcelona. Nobody is suggesting, however, a return to the old policy of doling out licences and industrial development certificates. We advocate a policy of inducing business investment away from the affluent south-east to outer Britain through a powerful package of incentives.
In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David), I might add that Britain is near the bottom of the European league for regional spending aid, to which we devote half as much money as France and one sixth of the sum spent by Germany. In the heyday of regional aid, which was 25 years ago, more than £3 billion a year at today's prices went in regional aid to the poorer regions, but regional selective assistance is now down to about £400 million a year. We need to ratchet it up to what it was under Labour Governments in the 1960s and 1970s. We also need to return to a system of automatic rather than discretionary grants, in order to send a clear signal to firms that they will receive financial support for investing in certain areas.
Mr. Jim Cousins: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with great interest and with feelings of solidarity, if I may use a social democratic term. Does he agree that the public sector should provide an example? One of the most important consequences of the Barlow report was the relocation of public sector activity to less favoured regions. My own region is one of the greatest recruiting grounds for the British armed forces, yet it has no civilian Ministry of Defence employment. That is a very good example of something that could be done without worrying about what the European Union might say.
Adam Price: Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman anticipates my concluding point very well. Government is a key driver, through employment and procurement policy.
Mr. Roger Williams: If that is the hon. Gentleman's final point, perhaps I might raise an issue that he has not mentioned. He talked about service boom and manufacturing bust. Surely the cause of that is an uncompetitive exchange rate. Would not some of the problems be solved if we were to adopt the single currency?
Adam Price: I am not minded to test the patience of the Chair by delving into that debate.
Before I deal with the issue that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) raised, I wish to discuss tax incentives. The Chancellor can play an important role. He created the stamp duty exemption and the community investment tax credit, but they are fairly small measures, given the current state of play. The Basque country and Navarre very effectively use their power to lower corporation tax rates, as part of the regional economic strategy for regions in north-west Spain. There is no reason why the nations—and, in time,

29WH
the northern regions of Britain—should not be allowed to do the same, provided that the powers are devolved to meet European Union competition rules.
Automatic grant aid on the scale of the 1970s, together with the use of tax incentives, would have a dramatic effect on jobs and investment. However, such measures are designed to compensate for one thing: the hugely distorting effects of the concentration of wealth in London and the south-east. No other European state is as centralised as Britain. London is not only the administrative capital but the financial, media and corporate capital as well. In almost every field of endeavour, people have to come to London to reach the peak of their profession. London is by far the largest net gainer of graduates, and it is draining the brains from the rest of Britain.
In such circumstances, it is astonishing that instead of using public funding as a counterweight to the concentration of private capital, we do precisely the opposite. An army of half a million civil servants, as well as the headquarters of virtually every public body, are based in London.
Another example is provided by the media, as Phil Redmond argued recently. Channel 4 and Channel 5 could have been set up in the regions, as could satellite broadcasting and facilities for the recently awarded BBC digital licences. Without directives from the Government, it is always more convenient for such companies to centre themselves in London, close to the rest of the media. At the same time, ITV, which is the one truly regional broadcasting structure, has been allowed to merge into what is virtually a national broadcaster. If the Government cannot come up with an answer to the north-south divide, at the very least they should not compound the problem.
I have a very simple—some would say simplistic—and radical suggestion. Let us move the capital north. Economists suggested it 30 years ago, so it is clearly long overdue. Moving out of London would be the greatest single contribution to the regeneration of the regions that the Government could make.
Mr. David: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Adam Price: I would like to make some progress, if I may.
All other major English-speaking states have their political capitals away from their biggest cities, and the Japanese and South Koreans are currently discussing moving their capitals. If the capital moved from London, property prices there would become more realistic, and roads and railways a little less clogged. London would still be a great global city—indeed, it is arguable that it would become an even greater one, because it would work better. It could remain the capital of England, and Westminster might one day become an English Parliament. There would be costs, but they would be dwarfed by long-term savings such as lower office costs, cheaper housing, cheaper child care, no need for London weighting and next to no commuting.
30WH
Liverpool has nine of the 20 poorest postcodes in the UK, so let us reverse life's location lottery and put the UK Parliament there, in an anglo-celtic city that is ethnically diverse and infectiously inclusive. The Treasury could do its bit by relocating to Bootle. Jobs would spread, as they have in the south, from the north-west to other regions, including Wales and the midlands. And why stop there? What better way to enshrine the independence of the Bank of England than to send it to Newcastle? We might then get policy decisions that hurt the north a little less and help manufacturing a good deal more.
Moving the capital would signal unequivocally that the Government take the north-south divide seriously. It would regenerate the north, take pressure off the south and symbolise a reformed and genuinely decentralised Britain. It would do nothing but good—which is why it will probably never happen.
The Government must do something in their power to break the southern-centric bias. As has been mentioned, they could give serious consideration to relocating quangos and whole Departments, as part of an explicit policy of redistributing Government employment to the regions.
Mr. David: The hon. Gentleman talks about moving the capital of the United Kingdom. Would he extend his thesis and suggest moving the capital of Wales north from Cardiff? In particular, I can think of no better place for it than the valleys of Caerphilly.
Adam Price: There are those who would call Caerphilly an outer suburb of Cardiff—but I am certainly not one of them.
The Wilson Government adopted just such a policy following the 1963 Flemming report and the 1973 Hardman review. As a result, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency went to Swansea, the Department of Employment to Sheffield, the social security records office to Washington—[Interruption.] Washington in the north-east of England, that is. The administrative functions of the Inland Revenue moved to Cumbernauld and Bradford. So far, new Labour's major achievement in that regard is the relocation of its offices from Millbank to Sheffield—although one wonders whether necessity was the mother of reinvention in that case.
History and international experience show us that regional economies are not entirely at the mercy of the market. Policies of regional redistribution, whether of private or public sector employment, can and have had positive effects. Central Government's role is crucial. Although local needs for regeneration are best determined locally, and regional development agencies and the devolved Administrations have a vital role, we can start to tackle regional disparities only if we have a judicious mixture of top-down and bottom-up policies.
Regional inequalities are substantial, and reversing them will require considerably more than the new regional policy currently offers. As the recent Institute for Public Policy Research report argued, the fact that these disparities have persisted for decades, and have been ignored and even denied by UK-wide institutions, exacerbates the sense of injustice. Those to whom

31WH
injustice has been done now look to the Government to discover how the wrongs of the last century can be righted in this century.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): Order. It might help Members if I say that it is desirable for the winding-up speeches to start at 12 o'clock. Members wishing to speak may gauge their contributions accordingly.
11.33 am
Hywel Williams: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) on securing this debate on regional policy. As nationalists, we are rather more interested in national policies for economic equity, but let us not quibble over nomenclature this morning.
This debate is not on regional policy only as it relates to Wales, although the situation in Wales is especially instructive, but on regional policy per se. My hon. Friend has already referred to the Government's welcome, if belated, recognition of the deep regional economic divisions in the UK, divisions that extend to all manner of fields—wealth, housing, health and employment as well as economic activity. No one would deny that there are divisions within, as well as between, the regions as the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) mentioned earlier. One reason why the "region" of Wales has cause to be glad that it has a National Assembly is that body's early decision to produce a proper index of multiple deprivation in Wales. Using measures that are appropriate to Wales—especially rural Wales—that index has exposed disparities that were previously masked or disregarded. They include accessibility of services, quality of housing and proper appreciation of the drain on family finances that running one car can cause, let alone two, as is often the case in rural areas.
Areas in my constituency hitherto regarded as rural idylls have emerged as areas of deep and real deprivation. That was dramatically exposed recently by research undertaken by Gwynedd county council. It showed that in the Llŷn peninsula, which has some of the worst housing conditions in Wales, there is pressure on prices in housing markets from comparatively rich outsiders from the overheated regions mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr. The price pressures combined with low local incomes meant that no one on an average wage could buy any property that was advertised locally. Some 20,000 local people on average wages could not access the local housing market.
Mr. Philip Hammond: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that that is also a problem in London and large areas of the south-east? It is not confined to rural Wales.
Hywel Williams: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. However, the point I am making is that prior to that small piece of research, the problem was not as apparent as it now is.
One of the most telling lessons of that thorough examination of deprivation in Wales is that regional disparity within our country has lessons for us. It startlingly mirrors divisions in the United Kingdom. Many of the south Wales valleys and the south-west and north-west of Wales are in an objective 1 area, so defined by the European Union because of the low GDP in the area. The areas that do not come under that definition are the south-east and the north-east, which are the areas that have experienced huge Government investment in infrastructure, industry, research and development, and in the case of Cardiff a glut of Government jobs and a growth in GDP.
The effects of that direct investment are clear: the overheating of the local economy, labour shortages, huge house price inflation and pressure on infrastructure. The investment is directed—and I use the term "directed" advisedly. The choice is not between regional investment or no such investment, but between investing in the poorer regions or investing in the rich south-east. That is, in part, an economic decision, and the effect of relying on the economic imperative is quite clear. For example, I was interested in the autumn to see a report from the Venture Capital Association that revealed that 48 per cent. of all venture capital investments were in the south-east of England. Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the regions of England did not get the share that they would expect on a per capita basis, let alone on a needs basis.
Investing in the poorer regions or in the rich south-east is a political choice. As in all political matters it is a question of priorities and, as my hon. Friend has shown, the Government's priority is far from redistributionist. The case of Wales is instructive for the UK as a whole, where the not-so-hidden hand of Government favours the rich south-east of England. The south-east of England is massively rich and has a declining environment, making it difficult for people on average incomes to live there.
To move on to a further constructive point, politicians from Wales and Scotland—and elsewhere in the UK—are often accused of whinging, complaining and always rattling the tin, so I want to describe the positive effect of a proper regional policy. The regions have something positive to offer to the great pensions debate in addressing the so-called demographic time bomb. We all get very worked up in the pensions debate about the dependency ratio—the proportion of those in work to support those in benefits. That ratio has been falling for many years and is one of the grounds cited in the arguments for pensions reform. However, the contribution of regional policy to that debate has been largely ignored.
I refer to an interesting exception: the recently published Catalyst report, "The Challenge of a Longer Life—Economic Burden or Social Opportunity" published in December 2002. Briefly, it points out the scope for increasing economic activity rates among older people. The regional element is clearly illustrated by the fact that in the period March to May 2000, the activity rates among men aged 50 to 64 and women aged 50 to 59 was 61.3 per cent. in Wales compared with 76.8

33WH
per cent. in the south-east of England. That suggests that any effects of greater prosperity leading to earlier retirement are outweighed by the strong demand for labour, which keeps older people in jobs. The report concludes that:
"Given a strong demand for labour and the greater willingness to employ older people, it is not difficult to envisage sufficient increase in activity rates to maintain the current ratio of workers to non-workers across the population as a whole".
Not only would a proper and successful regional policy tackle regional inequality, the gross waste of human resources and the issues of poverty, health and housing that I referred to, but it would have the utility of being part of the answer to one of the most pressing problems of social policy.
11.40 am
Mr. Wayne David: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) on securing this debate. It is vital that we focus on the development of a coherent regional policy in this country, and I agree that that has not attracted sufficient attention, at least in the recent past. I am delighted that he supports my campaign to have the capital city of Wales moved north from Cardiff into Caerphilly. That would be a positive step forward for the economic development not only of Britain, but of Wales.
I have some reservations about some aspects of the thesis that the hon. Gentleman developed at length. There are no absolutes in this debate—it is not a question of black and white alternatives. Regional policies are, of their very nature, complex economic instruments, and it is often a question of where one places the emphasis. I have reservations about the notion that regional policy can be based on the idea of redistributing resources from rich regions to poor regions—today's world is far too complex to allow a policy based on such a premise. We are in a new situation, with the development of the internal market, which will increasingly become more integrated, especially if we join the single currency. In addition, the process of globalisation is having a profound effect on the nature of our economies, and that effect will become even more profound in the near future. It is therefore essential that we develop new policies, not simply policies that are based on the assumptions of the past.
I agree with the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr that regional policies such as those pursued by Labour Governments in the 1960s and 1970s were effective, but it is wrong to assume that such policies can work in this new century. Rather than a strategy that is based solely on redistribution and on the idea of attracting footloose investment into less prosperous areas, we need a new kind of regional policy. Emphasis must be placed on developing indigenous entrepreneurship. The hon. Gentleman might be dismissive of such terms as "endogenous economic growth", but it is nevertheless true that the poorest regions in the United Kingdom lack entrepreneurial activity. That is an historic problem that cannot be solved overnight, but it must be addressed in our regional policy.
The development of the entrepreneurial action plan in Wales points the way forward. It is vital that we pursue a cultural change in many of our older industrial
34WH
regions, but our approach to economic development is rooted in our educational system and lifelong learning. It has as its end result a change in the cultural attitude to growth and economic development.
Mr. Roger Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the poorer regions of Great Britain and of Wales in particular have often been sold to potential investors as low-wage economies with low unit costs? We should take a more positive approach by improving skills and infrastructure, so that they are better places in which to do business, rather than places with low wage rates.
Mr. David: I agree absolutely—in fact, that was my next point. Rather than rely simply on attracting inward investment to less well-off regions on the basis of low wages and, often, poor health and safety standards, we should aim to create an economy that is based on high added value and high skills—on the quality of the people and the work force. That is where the emphasis of regional policy should lie.
Following on from that is the need for a regional policy that addresses fundamental weaknesses not only in the economy, but in the nature of our societies. The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr referred to the high levels of economic inactivity in many of the poorest areas and he was absolutely right. The question facing us is one not only of unemployment levels, but of how many people are economically active.
A great problem in many of the older industrial areas is the large number of people who are physically ill. It is vital that that issue is linked to the welfare to work debate. As part of the regional policy concept, we must consider ways of improving the health of large sections of the population. In some wards in parts of south Wales, for example, as many as one in four of the working age population is economically inactive owing to illness. If we are serious about increasing the GDP of such areas, we must improve the health and well-being of those people, so that they are potentially able to enter the labour market and eventually secure employment. That is one crucial element that we must consider.
Such ideas were not seriously considered 20 or 30 years ago. It is vital that we are not concerned simply with turning the clock back and looking at what Barlow said or what previous Labour Governments did. We must address the situation as it exists in our country today and plan for the future. As I said, this is not an either/or question. We need an holistic approach that pulls together the best of our experience and creates a vision for the future. That is what I hope our regional policy will consist of in this new century.
11.48 am
Mr. John Grogan: I congratulate the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) not only on securing the debate, but on an outstanding speech. In its breadth, it was a model of its kind. My contribution will be more modest, but given that the debate has a distinctive Welsh flavour, and in the week that Michael Vaughan was voted the man of the Ashes tour, I thought that a contribution from God's own county would be appropriate—[Interruption.]—especially in view of the constituency represented by the Minister.

35WH
I shall take as my text just one line from the regional economic strategy document prepared by Yorkshire Forward. This year's report says:
"The over-arching target of above European average growth in Gross Domestic Product per head is being achieved, but the gap with London and the South East is widening and strong growth in services contrasts with a shrinking manufacturing base."
I am a fan of Yorkshire Forward's work, but I shall point out three different issues relating to Yorkshire—there may also be implications for countrywide policy—on which a difference could be made in respect of reducing the gap.
First, one of the big challenges in regional policy in Yorkshire over the next year will be the closure of the Selby coalfield in my constituency. That has implications not only for my constituency, but for the whole of Yorkshire. According to the report by Lord Haskins, it will involve 2,000 jobs directly and about 5,000 indirectly, spread out across 600 firms in West, South and North Yorkshire. One of the great challenges in formulating Yorkshire's regional policy is to see whether the coalfield can close in a different way from the way in which coalfields closed in Yorkshire and throughout the country in the 1980s and 1990s.
I briefly draw hon. Members' attention to Lord Haskins' report, in which he says that the economic "shock" of the closure of the Selby coalfield, which was due in spring 2004 but now looks as though it could happen at the end of the year, will amount to £160 million. Lord Haskins has produced a package of measures and asked for £11 million of new Government money to attract inward investment, retraining and so on. I urge the Minister—a young man with good connections—to urge the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to reply quickly to the report. The matter is urgent and we want the taskforce's recommendations to be implemented speedily.
The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr characterised the Government's regional policy well when he said that, rightly or wrongly, it built on the strengths of the existing economy. He talked about the importance of science in reducing regional disparities. I bring to the Minister's attention an example in the grain of the regional policy in Yorkshire—the European spallation source project. I will not go into great detail, but the project is currently Europe's leading scientific project. It involves a neutron particle separator that will be the Hubble telescope of condensed matter.
Last year, it was my duty to ask a local parish councillor in Selby whether they fancied a European spallation source next door to them, as there is a site in Burn in my constituency. Yorkshire Forward's No. 1 project is to attract that facility to Yorkshire, which will build on the strengths of the White Rose Consortium of Leeds, Sheffield and York universities. As I said, the Minister is a young man of impeccable contacts, and I urge him to secure a meeting between the Yorkshire universities, Yorkshire Forward and Lord Sainsbury to discuss the project. At the moment, Lord Sainsbury says that it is too early to determine how the process would work throughout Europe, but it is never too early to discuss such matters. The bid for the project is the equivalent for Yorkshire of an Olympic bid, and I hope that we can secure a meeting to discuss it.
36WH
I add to the comments made by the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr by stressing the importance of regional media. In a debate on regional assemblies, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) said that we did not need a regional assembly in Yorkshire as we had a cricket team and an attitude. I do not agree with his conclusion about regional assemblies, but the remark about the cricket team and the attitude is true. However, we also have Yorkshire Television. Regional media are terribly important to a sense of identity and to the economy, and Yorkshire Television has produced a fascinating document outlining all its contributions to the local economy.
I draw hon. Members' attention to early-day motion 260 in my name, to which there are almost 80 signatories, to strengthen the Communications Bill by strengthening regional television. According to the Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television, the number of regional opt-out slots on ITV has decreased from 8,700 hours to approximately 6,600 hours over the past year. The number of regional productions on the BBC has increased slightly to a total of 5,300 hours. My early-day motion would strengthen the requirements for regional production on the ITV network and allow the ITV companies to be regarded for the first time as independent companies in bidding for the BBC's independent quota. London luvvies—companies based around London—currently dominate that quota. ITV companies such as Border and Yorkshire should be able to bid for that national quota.
Finally, the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill is now in the House of Lords. It would be enormously strengthened if transport were placed entirely under the auspices of the new regional assemblies. There is much strategic planning in the Bill, but the regional assemblies do not have a sufficient job to do. Transport is the most obvious sector with which regional assemblies should deal. We should not continue with passenger transport executives and authorities in Yorkshire. It is ridiculous to have a passenger transport authority in both West and South Yorkshire and a regional assembly to deal with the strategic planning of transport. Only one body is required across the region, which would allow a regional travel pass and perhaps a concessionary pass for pensioners. We should popularise the idea of having a regional assembly.
Finally, the Minister referred to consultation on the timing of referendums. I am a supporter of regional government and I know that the level of support in Yorkshire is different from the level in the north-east, for example. Business supports a regional assembly more in the north-east and the north-west than in Yorkshire, so the county should not be in the first wave of referendums for regional government: the other regions should go first.
11.55 am
Mr. David Drew: I came here for the previous debate and initially had no intention of participating in this one. However, I am moved by the excellent contribution of the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) to make my own contribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) rightly stressed the importance of contextualising regional policy within the wider debate. Greater interest

37WH
might follow from understanding the importance of the economic redevelopment of regions. People might see more clearly the need for political and administrative improvement. I have always supported some form of regional government because otherwise we end up with unelected quangos freewheeling and taking decisions off their own back, which is neither acceptable nor fair. We can advance the regional debate only when we reconnect economic decision making to the political aspect of governance, which is the proper starting-point. I disagree with the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr on his historical analysis of regional policy. We need to look within regions as well as between them.
Rural deprivation is strongly connected with agricultural decline. It is difficult to see in terms of the aggregation of numbers, because the agricultural industry in this country is small, but many Labour Members are worried about agricultural decline. We must not just talk about diversification, but make sensible and cogent arguments for it. Rural decline is nothing new: it has been with us virtually for ever, dating back to the agricultural revolution. It has been heightened by the more difficult and rapidly accumulating problems that the industry faces today.
I am a little surprised that the decline in manufacturing has not been emphasised. I would link regional decline clearly with the decline of our manufacturing base. It will be felt more harshly in regions where manufacturing has traditionally been more important. We may be clouding the issue too much. A proper regional policy should be running alongside a proper manufacturing policy. Whereas I am critical of our inability to deal with our agricultural decline, at least we have a policy across Europe, through which resources are channelled into the industry—perhaps in the wrong way and insufficiently, but we are trying to deal with the problem.
It is one of the European Union's greatest weaknesses that it has a policy supposedly based entirely around competition rather than support. That is foolhardy in various ways, most clearly because it is not working—if it is working, why is manufacturing decline taking place throughout this country, Europe and the developed world? Some may say that such decline is inevitable because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Selby mentioned, companies will always seek out low-wage economies whether we like it or not. However, that does not excuse us from examining policies to deal with manufacturing.
The daftest element of all the daft things done by the EU is the idea that we cannot intervene in manufacturing decline because it would be a form of state aid, which is contrary to competition policy. We know that that is blatantly unrealistic and dishonest. All countries intervene, but some do it more covertly and cleverly than my own Government. I wish that we were more overt and said that we were going to intervene, and why and how we would do that. My argument is that the regional policy debate cannot be masked by one that avoids the inevitable need for a proper debate on where we want manufacturing in this country and the rest of western Europe to go. Surrendering and saying that the decline is all down to the market is not acceptable. It is time that we recognised that sensible, strategic planning, proper use of infrastructure investment, and support for
38WH
what could be called losers, as well as the winners, to turn them into more successful companies can achieve our aims.
Regional development agencies can help in that process. I speak highly of the South West of England Regional Development Agency, because it has intervened in my constituency in a big way by taking on a site in Dursley in which to reinvest and regenerate. That is a model for action that could be taken elsewhere, although it is always against the background of the threat of the European Commission's declaring such action to be unacceptable and anti-competitive. However, we cannot pretend that we can run a country with any manufacturing basis unless we have that level of intervention. We should be open and honest. We should encourage the debate initially and then encourage action; otherwise, regional policy will become irrelevant as we see a massive decline of core employment. I am not a believer that an economy can be run on that basis. That was the greatest fallacy of Thatcherism—
Mr. Bill O'Brien (in the Chair): Order. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the winding-up speeches start at 12 noon.
12.2 pm
Matthew Green: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) on securing the debate and giving a wide-ranging and entertaining speech. Hon. Members should be made aware that he has been sharing his views on moving Parliament to Liverpool with Derek Hatton on Radio Wales in recent days, so he has some interesting allies for his proposals.
The hon. Gentleman spent a long time highlighting the problems, and although his solution has some attraction in principle, it is a little simple. He avoided some of the more obvious problems that are creating the disparities that he highlighted so well. I will not try to repeat what he said about those, but one subject that he avoided, which is pertinent to the issue, is the comparative strength of the pound and euro. The disparity has hit manufacturing, farming and tourism, which are key component industries of the north, Wales and Cornwall.
We cannot escape the fact that the disparity exists, and if we were in the euro, we would not assume the same disparity in economic growth between London and the south-east and the rest of the country. The hon. Gentleman's party has the problem that it would probably prefer a separate Welsh currency—a Glyndwr, or something similar—which would have problems of its own. He omitted to mention the exchange rate, which is a key component of the debate, and which has probably resulted in the loss of about half a million manufacturing jobs since Labour came to power. Much of the blame for that can be laid at the door of the Government's reluctance to call a referendum on the single currency.
The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr rightly highlighted a number of other problems, and I will draw attention to a couple more of the issues. The hon. Gentleman spoke about housing, and there is no doubt that there is a great housing problem in London

39WH
and the south-east. However, a housing needs survey that has just been carried out in my own constituency, in South Shropshire district, just on the English side of the Welsh border, revealed that for anyone on average local wages, there have been no houses available to buy for the past six months. The reason why that situation is different from that in the south-east is that we are punished by the property values in the south-east. People retire to Shropshire, and that drives up the house prices, so people who work in the area can no longer afford to live there. As has been highlighted, Cornwall and other areas face the same problem.
More worryingly, there is an acceleration of the regional divide in issues such as broadband. Because there is a high population density in London and the south-east, as well as many businesses that use a great deal of money, organisations such as BT will fall over themselves to provide broadband in those areas. However, in the less economically active and more sparsely populated areas, the unit cost of installing broadband is greater, and BT will be reluctant to do so. In my own area, Advantage West Midlands is doing wonderful work in trying to get broadband into rural areas, but it remains a struggle, and we are years behind. The availability of broadband will encourage business growth in London, the south-east and the major economic centres, and the Government must address that issue in a way that will help the other regions of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr mentioned that there was some attraction in moving parts of government out of the south-east. I will not discuss further what those parts of government might be. There are, however, other solutions that must be considered.
A key issue is the need for a proper regional government policy for England, and the need to strengthen regional government in Wales. One of the ironies of the proposals being put forward for regional government in England is that the regional governments will in effect have a tax-varying power. Wales would then be the only place in the UK that did not have such a power. The Government have not commented on that, but I assume that they will eventually realise that that situation cannot continue, and will address it—but there are different views within the Government as to how they might deal with the issue.
If regional government is to be set up in England, the lesson to be learned from Wales, compared with Scotland, is interesting. The Scottish Parliament was given substantially more powers than the Welsh Assembly, and has probably been more successful because of that. I support the Welsh Assembly and the work that it does, but it has not performed as well as the Scottish Parliament, probably because it does not have the same powers. The same thing will happen in England. The proposed regional assemblies will have almost no powers at all. They will have an overview of the quangos that already exist, but will not be able to control them.
I will give two examples. The regional assembly will be able to decide on its preferred regional transport strategy, but the decision whether that strategy will be implemented will be made at the centre, because central
40WH
Government will decide which schemes are funded. The money will not go into a big pot for the regions to decide where to fund schemes. The regions will come up with the idea, and Ministers will make the final decisions on whether to proceed. The same will be true for health: there will be a regional health adviser, but he or she will be appointed by the Minister.
The regional assemblies are in danger of being toothless—a fact that was touched on many times in Committee on the preparatory legislation. I do not want to go into too much detail, but there is an issue in some parts of England about the boundaries of the regions, which were set by the Conservatives for administrative purposes. We tease them about "their" regions—but that is why they were set up, and they are now being used to set up regional elected assemblies. There are problems in parts of the south-west, the south-east and the west midlands, which do not feel that they belong in the Government's current regions. We must address the boundary issue before we are likely to get a popular, referendum-winning solution.
The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr avoided mentioning the Barnett formula, which is 20 years out of date. We cannot carry on pretending that it does not exist; it needs to be properly reviewed by a commission, although I do not pretend to know all the answers that may come out of such a review. We need radical housing policies in the south-east and in other parts of the country, to allow houses to be built by means of shared equity, renting or golden share schemes to keep them out of the open market. That is what is needed to keep the economy going.
The problem is that the Government do not have a firm idea of their regional policy—that is the title of the debate. They have a tentative approach to regional assemblies; they do not understand that they mean decentralising from Westminster, moving civil servants away from London to the regions and giving those regions power over things that are currently decided in Westminster. That is what real regional policy would do; that is what would help to drive the economy in the regions and bring lasting benefit to people throughout the United Kingdom, including those in London and the south-east who suffer from the negative aspects of the Boom—the housing and transport problems, and the congestion. A positive rather than a tentative approach from the Government would be welcome.
12.12 pm
Mr. Philip Hammond: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) on securing the debate. I confess to having been puzzled when I saw the title "Regional Policy" standing in the name of a Welsh nationalist Member. I wondered whether the debate would be about English regional policy, or what I might call old-fashioned regional economic policy. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having carefully crafted his arguments to keep the debate in order.
I have much sympathy for the hon. Gentleman's argument about the north-south divide, and I see it as two sides of the same problem, as my constituency is in a part of the country that suffers from the problems of economic overdevelopment. However, the hon. Gentleman and I are not likely to agree on the solution.

41WH
Neither my party nor I are attracted to the Gosplan approach that he favours, of redirecting investment. One or two hon. Members fell into the trap of talking as if the vast bulk of investment were public investment, whereas in our economy most investment is private. Private investment can be coaxed, persuaded and incentivised, but it cannot be directed.
The hon. Gentleman looked back with nostalgia to the '60s and '70s and proclaimed that the era of direct subsidies was "no failure". However, he readily acknowledged that when the direct subsidies dried up in the '80s and '90s, the regional economic disparities reappeared—thus neatly putting his finger on the problem with using direct subsidy as a solution. I would argue that the measure of the success of regional economic development funding is the achievement of long-term, sustainable, self-generating growth within a region.
I would argue, too, that as we move from an economy with a regional pattern largely based on the existence of natural resources to one overwhelmingly based on human resources, the infrastructure and skill deficit must be addressed in any effective long-term regional policy. We must ensure that we improve transport infrastructure in a way that delivers immediate effects. This is a chicken-and-egg problem. Although everyone would like railways and airports in their regions that will help to generate economic development, such transport investments depend on volume and critical mass to deliver effective services. I am afraid to say—because it flies in the face of much Government thinking—that only roads, as a form of transport infrastructure, are likely to deliver the short-term immediate benefits to the regions where economic development needs kick-starting.
The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) picked up on one of the most important issues—communications infrastructure. As our economy is transforming into a human resource and service-based economy, the broadband revolution held out the prospect of removing the problems of isolation and remoteness, and creating an equality that could not have been dreamt of even 30 or 40 years ago. Unfortunately, the Government failed to deliver on their ambitious targets for the introduction of broadband. Local loop unbundling has been a miserable failure, with the result that genuine broadband is a big city phenomenon and ADSL is a large town and suburban phenomenon. Even where I live, just 26 miles from the Palace of Westminster, we do not have ADSL, and there is no prospect of getting it in the near future. The Government have compounded the problem by taking £20 billion that would otherwise have been available for investment out of the telecom sector, through the third generation telephone licensing round. That has meant that technologies that might be able to deliver in remoter areas, such as wireless local loop technologies, remain undeveloped.
Mr. Cousins: Does the hon. Gentleman propose that the Government should give some of that money back?
Mr. Hammond: I do not suppose that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be keen to do so, given the predicament in which he currently finds himself, having adopted a tax-and-spend policy and then discovered
42WH
that tax receipts will be somewhat lower than expected. That is certainly an interesting suggestion, however. Perhaps the Minister would care to put it to his colleagues at the Treasury.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) identified one of the key issues that must be addressed in any effective regional strategy: the development of entrepreneurship in regions that, because of their industrial past, do not have strong traditions of entrepreneurial development. I hope that regions, both in England and beyond, in the devolved Administrations, will build on their advantages and regional strengths and promote clustering as a way of developing self-sustaining local indigenous growth. The EU-funded science project in Selby is just such an example, which has a genuine prospect of securing an effective self-sustaining local cluster.
Of course, the Government's approach is that elected regional assemblies are a vital part of securing regional economic growth and balancing regional economic development. We see no evidence of that. Indeed, the Scottish example seems to suggest the opposite. Since devolution, growth in Scotland has lagged behind growth in the United Kingdom. There is no evidence that an extra tier of politicians and bureaucracy will narrow regional differentials, and throughout the European Union, inequalities between regions have been growing during the past 15 years, despite the fact that many EU countries have strong traditions of regional economic growth.
Even the director general of the CBI is sceptical. He says:
"Business doesn't believe that regional assemblies will deliver. We feel that they won't make people's lives better. If anything, we believe that there is a real danger they could make a bad situation even worse."
The Government are politicising the current RDAs by grafting a tier of elected oversight on to them. They hope that that will provide a panacea, but it will have the opposite of the desired effect.
If I am to give the Minister 10 minutes in which to reply, I can speak for only one more minute, so I shall make just one more point. I rather expected a Welsh Member to mention the availability of match funding, but no one has done so. Such funding would allow full use to be made of the EU structural funds that are allocated to Wales for 2001–06. Where do the Government, and in particular the Deputy Prime Minister, stand as regards the Barnett formula?
In an interview under the heading "Scots and Welsh face subsidy axe", which was published in The Guardian just before the last general election, the Deputy Prime Minister said that the forthcoming review of local government finance, which was promised soon after the election, would
"include a detailed examination of funding throughout the UK."
He promised that there would be "blood on the carpet" as a result of the review. Are the Government committed to retaining the Barnett formula, which might be seen as disadvantaging Wales, given the measures of genuine deprivation there? On the other hand, are they now prepared, as the Deputy Prime Minister suggested, to take on the Scottish lobby and risk the tartan backlash by revisiting the formula as part of their review of regional distribution in England?
12.21 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Christopher Leslie): I have only a short time to respond to the debate, which has generated several intriguing ideas. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) on proposing the subject. The debate has been very wide-ranging, moving from an exposition on the single European currency by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) to issues such as broadband communications. All those issues are relevant, but I shall try to restrict my contribution to matters that fall within my ministerial responsibilities, and those that relate more directly to regional policy.
The Government take regional policy very seriously. We recognise that the need to increase our regional focus on economic development is not only about fairness and prosperity but about ensuring that there is strong cohesion between all parts of the United Kingdom. We want to work hard to ensure that that objective is taken forward and that regional and national prosperity goals are fully integrated into all our delivery mechanisms.
The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr recognised that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, together with the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry, has responsibility for a public service agreement target specifically on regional economic performance. Our target is to make sustainable improvements in the economic performance of the English regions and, over the longer term, to reduce the persistent gap in growth rates between them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) highlighted the fact that that would be a particular challenge in certain parts of the country, including our home territory of Yorkshire, which we are both proud to come from. He mentioned the coal industry, and said that the Government's response to the taskforce must be strong and relevant. He also mentioned the campaign on the location of the spallation facility in Yorkshire, and I will examine any representations closely.
The gap in economic growth rates has persisted for many years and under all Governments. Now, for the first time in a generation or more, we must focus on tackling some of the disparities in economic performance between the regions and nations of the United Kingdom. We must all focus on creating the conditions for growth. The Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Executive—I will make sure that I get my brownie points by being the first person to mention that—and the Northern Ireland Administration, similarly, focus on economic performance.
I am not entirely convinced by the solutions that the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr would pursue. He mentioned, for example, his opposition to building new homes in areas where pressures are high and workers—particularly public sector workers—face significant difficulties. When he talks about redistribution, I suspect that he really means telling people where they should and should not live. I am not sure that that approach is possible. We cannot have an approach that constrains, smothers or suppresses prosperity. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) rightly highlighted the need for a more sophisticated approach appropriate for today's
44WH
environment, rather than looking back at previous policies. We need to stimulate demand and growth where those are lower than their full potential.
The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr and others touched on the issue of location in the public sector. His argument was about moving the capital to Carmarthen. Some may argue that the capital should be in Bradford—but although I might see the moral argument for that, it is not the Government's policy.
We will take further steps to improve our regional policy, such as ensuring that awareness of regional devolution features strongly in civil service training and development, with the aim of increasing the mobility of civil servants between headquarters and regional offices. Whitehall Departments will also be encouraged to consider the balance of their staff between the centre and the regions, in terms of effective policy design and implementation. In particular, Departments will have to demonstrate the case for not locating new streams of work outside London and the south-east.
Hon. Members are familiar with the idea of the north-south divide, but they should not be surprised to hear me say that that notion is a rather simplistic and possibly inaccurate way to describe the imbalances in economic performance in the UK. I do not deny that there are such imbalances between regions, although it should not be forgotten that differences in economic performance within regions can be even more marked than those between them. We are committed to tackling disparities wherever they occur. We must make sure that we consider the imbalances both between and within regions, and create the conditions that reduce the gap in growth rates between the south-east and the east, and the other six regions. We must tackle disparity and disadvantage wherever they occur.
The office of the Deputy Prime Minister is not the only Department that has the objective of reducing such disparities; that objective is built into the whole range of the Government's policies. The Government set the framework, but from the centre, we can only do so much. When it comes to revitalising a region, we accept that Whitehall and Westminster do not necessarily know best. We were elected on a platform that included bringing devolution to Scotland and Wales, and we set up regional development agencies as strategic drivers of economic development in England. Their work has been successful so far. They are already tackling the causes of low economic development in regions. Firms are being helped, neglected neighbourhoods are being regenerated, and regional strengths are being augmented. Hon. Members may have seen, for example, the contribution of the North West Development Agency in transforming east Manchester, during the recent coverage of the Commonwealth games.
Many hon. Members representing Wales have spoken. Although it is outside my ministerial responsibility, I think that we have a proud record of devolving responsibility for economic development to the National Assembly for Wales. That has helped the successful economic approach that the Welsh Assembly Administration have taken. The First Minister has taken a personal role in assuming responsibility for northern Wales. Such approaches have helped to lead to success in a number of ways.

45WH
Much as I would love to talk about the Conservative party's record on regional government, I am running out of time, and it would not be right to let the debate pass without mentioning the move towards elected regional assemblies for England, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) alluded. They could be crucial to the success of the regions by making sure that the politics links with the economic policies for the future. Our vision is that the UK will perform more strongly; all our regions and nations will have to improve their economic performance if we are to succeed. The Deputy Prime Minister has consistently championed regional policy, and I am proud to have the opportunity to work alongside him.

Common Agricultural Policy
12.30 pm
Mr. Graham Allen: Thank you, Mr. O'Brien—or, to judge from your name card, Mr. O'Hara. Has your name changed over Christmas?
I want to debate the cost of the common agricultural policy, because those of us who believe in Europe, and I count myself very much in that camp, are mocked by it every day. Its financial cost is high and in the view of those who want to further the European project, its political cost is even greater.
I hope to hear more from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), about the Government's proposals for CAP reform. More importantly, I want to know what the Government are doing to promote the reform proposals both to the British electorate and to the Governments and electors of other European countries. I hope that by the end of the debate we will be in no doubt that fundamental reform of the CAP is a vital British foreign policy interest, essential to Britain's future in the European Union and to the future and credibility of the European Union.
About half the EU budget is spent on agriculture. Many people—certainly in my constituency—could be forgiven for feeling that we belong to a common agricultural union rather than the European Union. Some of us would like more emphasis on the advantages of EU membership than on agricultural subsidy.
The common agricultural policy is almost wholly without merit. Its beneficiaries are rich farmers and giant agribusinesses, special interest groups, bureaucrats and, sadly, fraudsters and organised criminals. Its casualties are the citizens of Europe who must pay the bills for the CAP, both as consumers and as taxpayers, as well as the third world, the environment, wildlife and farm animals throughout the EU, law and order throughout the EU and, not least, public confidence in the integrity of the EU.
According to the Consumers Association, the common agricultural policy adds more than £16 each week to the average shopping bill of a typical British family. Our food is twice as expensive as, for example, that in New Zealand. New Zealand is well favoured agriculturally, and New Zealanders, unlike Europeans, do not labour under excessive subsidies and tariffs. The CAP costs the taxpayer £50 billion a year. If my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer put 2p on income tax, there would be an outcry, yet that is what the CAP costs every UK taxpayer.
Whatever its failings for Britain, one might feel better if the CAP helped the poorest farmers or rural communities in Europe. It does not do that adequately; 70 per cent. of payments end up in the pockets of the richest 20 per cent. of farmers in the UK and the EU. According to the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development, the CAP awards £500,000 to that horny-handed son of toil, the Duke of Westminster.
Even worse is the effect of the common agricultural policy on the third world. Many warm words come out of this place about the third world, but the CAP denies export markets to third world countries and destroys

47WH
their home markets by dumping surplus foodstuffs on them. In doing so, it benefits bad Governments and middlemen in the third world and destroys the price structure for local farmers, perpetuating debt and poverty. Of course, the EU is not alone in dumping produce on the third world, but the CAP makes nonsense of our hopes that the EU might offer it a new and better pathway out of poverty and support the superb work that is being done by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for International Development and the Chancellor.
Not content with dumping food on the third world, the CAP dumps tobacco there as well. That tobacco is low in quality and high in tar and is rejected by Europeans. The same EU that rightly tries to protect its citizens from such tobacco is happy for it to be used to kill African and Asian people at the European taxpayer's expense.
Because of the CAP, each cow in the European Union receives a subsidy of $2.20 a day, according to CAFOD, an income greater than that of half the world's population.
In Europe, the CAP has done more to harm the environment than two world wars. It has promoted intensive farming—a better name for which is perhaps chemical farming; it has destroyed hedgerows and habitats; it has poisoned land, rivers and streams; and it has killed wildlife across Europe. Since 1970, the European Union has suffered a 40 per cent. loss in farm birds—an issue that is, I know, dear to the Minister's heart. That is the fastest known loss of species. If Shelley were alive today, he would write not an ode to the skylark, but an elegy. I shall seek another Adjournment debate specifically on the loss of bird life in the United Kingdom.
The CAP is a magnet for fraud, racketeering and organised crime, and if the scale and consequences of that fraud were not so terrible, it could form the basis of a new generation of Ealing comedies. One of the most memorable examples is the great olive saga. Realising belatedly that most of the CAP's £1.5 billion olive tree subsidy was being spent on non-existent olive groves, the EU used a £130 million satellite to spy on claimants. However, the technology was foiled when the claimants filled their bare fields with plastic olive trees. That may be yet another blow to the environment from the CAP.
Above all, the CAP has created a climate of cheating and corruption across Europe. For millions of European people it has become normal, even praiseworthy, to steal the resources that belong to all the people of Europe. Through the CAP my constituents not only pay higher prices and taxes, but finance crime.
The problems that I have outlined are well known and deep-seated. I do not say that there should be no regime to support agriculture. However, the regime should be open, honest and clear. Of course we need to protect our farmers and ensure that a proper food supply is maintained. That is a central tenet of any Government or union of Governments. Nevertheless, our current way of proceeding does not fulfil those objectives; rather than giving credibility to the wider concept of Europe, it undermines it. The problems will probably deepen when
48WH
Europe broadens and expands, with the accession of new member states from eastern Europe, bringing millions of new agricultural claimants.
In Poland alone more people are dependent on agriculture than is the case in the United Kingdom, Italy and France put together. There is some optimism—although I hope that the Minister will not reply over-optimistically—about the possibility that enlargement will force the EU to reform the CAP. I am afraid that at the moment there is little evidence of that. Indeed, the French and Germans effectively kicked reform into touch until 2006. The accession states are being promised a rising percentage of payments from the CAP year on year up to 2013. I am afraid that it is far more likely that the accession states will create new allies and opportunities for opponents of CAP reform. While the Minister is battling away in Brussels for sensible CAP reform, the forces against his and the Government's efforts are not diminishing, but increasing.
We need a broader campaign. We must support our Minister, our Department and our national objectives on a wider scale. We can achieve that if the Government as a whole exert stronger pressure for CAP reform. I have no doubt that the Government are committed to reform, but that commitment must be more visible and voluble.
I have the greatest of respect for my hon. Friend as I have known him for many years and know the hard work that he puts in. Even so, the Prime Minister must take a strong personal lead in support of reform and make it part of his commitment to reform the European Union so that it has greater credibility among the people.
I would like our proposals on CAP reform to be accompanied by an unprecedented diplomatic and political offensive. I want every Government and every citizen of the EU, present and future, to be aware of a prime ministerial plan for European agriculture—a Blair plan, if I may call it that. I want the Blair plan to influence the political agenda of every country in the EU because I am convinced that citizens throughout Europe have as much to gain as we do in the United Kingdom.
Of course, 5 per cent. of European Union voters make their living from the land and agriculture, but 100 per cent. of EU voters are consumers and are waiting for a lead. Let us tell those voters why and how the Blair plan would mean lower food prices and lower taxes. Let us tell them why and how the Blair plan would help their small farms and rural poor, rather than the giant agribusinesses and racketeers. Let us tell them why and how the Blair plan would save their environment and their irreplaceable wildlife and give them healthier, happier animals and food of better quality. Let us tell them why and how the Blair plan would improve living standards and create new opportunities for some of the poorest people in the world and make a difference to them. All such things can move European voters as well as our own, and I am sorry that a Blair plan was not sold in such a way to the voters of France and Germany during the run up to their elections last year.
Let us waste no more time winning over every possible supporter for European reform of the CAP. The Government have everything to gain from a high-profile crusade for CAP reform, and it is a worthy cause for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is

49WH
invariably at his best when he sees and expresses an issue in clear moral terms. This issue lends itself to that form of expression.
It is not only a practical necessity, but a moral duty, for the Governments of the EU to reform the CAP. It is a wasteful policy with wicked consequences, and nothing would do more to restore faith in the European Union throughout the UK and the EU than CAP reform. If I may veer into crude politics, it would also do my right hon. Friend a great deal of good in terms of the domestic political agenda. Indeed, I go further and suggest that CAP reform is essential if the Prime Minister is to win a referendum on the euro. If the EU remains incapable of running a successful common policy on agriculture after 40 years, why should anyone believe that it is capable of running a common currency and a common economic policy? As I said at the outset, the costs are not merely financial and to do with the waste of the common agricultural policy; there will also be heavy political costs if we fail to address the issue and fail to ensure that half of current spending in the European Union has the credibility that it deserves.
I hope that the Minister will address some of those issues. I am sure that the topic is on his agenda and that he works hard on it; however, it will not go away, and assumes greater significance as we approach a closer union, not merely in terms of the euro but in terms of the European project as a whole. Much rests on fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy.
12.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). He makes a powerful case on all that is wrong with the common agricultural policy and on the kind of problems that our Government—every European Government—face in terms of the pressing need for the reform of the common agricultural policy. He is right in identifying the costs of the scheme; it currently costs about €45 billion in direct support. It is calculated that there is an additional €50 billion effect in relation to higher prices, which are due to protectionism through the interventions of various regimes. That has put prices up for the consumer. On top of that, member states' exchequers pay another €15 billion for a range of support for the agricultural sector. In the United Kingdom, that works out at some €15,000 per farmer per year, but as my hon. Friend rightly stated, there are distortions to that sum because of the structure of agriculture in our country.
The common agricultural policy has not been very successful for the consumer, the environment or, importantly, farmers. In many cases, the CAP, which is some 1.4 per cent. of the EU's gross domestic product, distorts markets. As my hon. Friend rightly states, the CAP has an impact on developing countries with agrarian economies, particularly when we very expensively support agricultural production with intervention prices and, to add insult to injury, dump surplus products on to international markets at subsidised prices. That simply depresses world prices, which in turn distorts proper world trade and has an impact on developing countries. It also has an impact on our producers, particularly those who are not subsidised under the CAP but have to compete with sectors that get those subsidies.
50WH
My hon. Friend is also right to say that the CAP has led to intensification in a range of agricultural production. That intensification has, in many cases, caused environmental damage. It is often pointed out that farming shapes and maintains our landscape, and that is true. In many cases, it maintains a landscape that people think is particularly important and valuable. However, it is also fair to say that the intensification of agriculture has shaped our landscape in negative ways, too. One impact has been the decline in farmland birds, plants and insects. There has also been a loss of a range of fragile habitats, such as traditional hay meadows, flower meadows, and wetlands, which subsidies have made it worth while to convert for different forms of agricultural production. In some cases that change is driven more by the subsidy than by market demand and consumer requirements.
My hon. Friend is right to say that there is clear potential for fraud in all countries. There is also a costly infrastructure to administer. Farmers often complain about regulations and bureaucracy; the Government understand and have some sympathy, but if large-scale payments are to be made through public funds, there must be accountability and traceability, and that requires enormously expensive infrastructure. He is also right to say that the enlargement of the World Trade Organisation is driving reform. I agree that the Prime Minister and the Government have a role in terms of arguing the case for reform. Indeed, it is important, from an EU position, to argue the case for reform and to explain the potential benefits for the agricultural sector and its importance for consumers and society in general.
Mr. David Curry: Does the Minister agree that the one thing that is least likely to bring reform of the common agricultural policy is a Blair plan that is couched in the kind of moralising terms that we have just heard and which describes the whole CAP as a caricature of corruption? If the United Kingdom wants reform, would it not be better to cease talking that kind of language and begin talking in more practical language about how to help farmers, consumers, the environment and people generally, instead of saying how wicked the whole thing is? The CAP was put together by intelligent politicians for a reason.
Mr. Morley: The right hon. Gentleman is being a bit hard on my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North, whom I did not think used that tone. I understand exactly the right hon. Gentleman's point. The CAP and its structures are rooted in a 1945 policy made during austerity and food shortages, when the priority was to maximise food production in a post-war world. In that context it was successful.
The right hon. Gentleman understands these issues and I agree with him that the CAP and its structures have outlived their usefulness. We are moving into another dimension in relation to food production, distribution, supply and agricultural support. There is more interest these days in environmental support, in how food is produced, in the quality of food and what is imported, in the treatment of animals and animal welfare. There has been a shift in attitudes and opinion. Of course, as my hon. Friend pointed out, and as the

51WH
right hon. Gentleman knows, the WTO dimension regarding enlargement cannot be ignored. If the EU is to be enlarged, a move that the Government and I support, the CAP must also be reformed. I know that the right hon. Gentleman was making a point about how that should be discussed, but there is no disagreement on the need for that reform and for the case to be made.
Certain changes have been made. At the European Council in October an agreement was made to fix market support—pillar 1—expenditure for 2007 to 2013 to the levels set in 2006 plus 1 per cent. per year. That is an important restraint on EU expenditure, especially in respect of enlargement, and it must accommodate the phasing in of direct payments in new member states and the financing of further reform. That will not be open ended in relation to the kind of enlargement and changes that we are discussing.
We are also embarking on the mid-term review, to which Franz Fischler is committed. I have attended the Agriculture Council and I know that Franz Fischler has made it clear that decoupling is essential if we are to make progress in the WTO negotiations. We must move away from our present rigid agriculture support. We expect formal legislative proposals on the mid-term review on about 22 January. We support Commissioner Fischler's aims to secure agreement by the end of the Greek presidency in June 2003, although we recognise that that is a somewhat challenging timetable.
We think that the mid-term review is going the right way on the main points. There will be much negotiation on and examination of the detail, but we welcome the essential commitment to decouple payments from production, because that removes immediately some of the perverse incentives to over-produce that exist in the present system.
We are also interested in the cross-compliance and farm audits, which the Commission has proposed. As with everything else, the devil is in the detail—I shall press that point strongly.
Mr. Allen: Ordinary people must be persuaded of a couple of things and they need to be won over if we are to enhance the current European project. First, the careful detail that my hon. Friend has put forward must not be overturned by two or three important leaders getting together late at night and stitching up a deal. We must show people that we are working towards something that Her Majesty's Government have laid out and they must be able to see progress. Secondly, they also need—as I do—such things to be explained in clear, ordinary language. I understand why the Minister's explanation is technical, but to convince people about the reform pathway for the common agricultural policy, the argument must be put across to people. Some of us may understand the language—the distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), in particular may
52WH
understand the terminology, although I do not pretend to—but we need to find a way to bring people along with us.
Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is quite right again. Those of us who work in these areas tend to get absorbed in the jargon and take it for granted that people understand the points being made.
Mr. Curry: Before the Minister starts on decoupling, let me say that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North complained that the CAP directed the largest amount of money towards the richest farmers. Will the Minister confirm that the Government's policy in the mid-term review is to defend the direction of money pro rata to farmers irrespective of the size of their farms and to oppose the Commission's proposal to place a financial ceiling on the amount that individual farmers can receive?
Mr. Morley: Yes, I can confirm that the right hon. Gentleman is correct, but I should explain why. There is a proposal to put a ceiling on payments, and our problem with that is that our farms are bigger than the European average and the effect would fall disproportionately on the United Kingdom. There is also a practical problem: once one introduces ceilings on farm sizes, it is not difficult for people to split up holdings and register them in other family names, which would cause all sorts of management difficulties.
We want to move away from subsidies. We want to decouple completely, and we do not want to get involved in any proposal about ceilings because that, as far as we are concerned, would merely tinker with the system. We are committed to a more fundamental review. Although the right hon. Gentleman's comments are accurate, they should not be taken as a Government commitment of support for the big farmer against the small one, because that is not what we do.
We have enlarged and increased the English rural development programme by applying modulation in the UK, which no other member state currently does, although it is likely that others will follow. It could be argued that the biggest and wealthiest farmers contribute the most by putting money back into the scheme. Modulation takes a proportion of the subsidies—currently about 4.5 per cent.—and puts it into the rural development programme. That increases the finance available for schemes such as countryside stewardship, which is popular with farmers—it has a great deal of support in relation to applications—and with consumers because, given a choice between supporting environmental management or production payments, the vast majority will choose the former.
Countryside stewardship is a way of supporting farmers who provide benefits for the funds that they receive and is a far more targeted, transparent and productive way of using the money than at present when commodities are sometimes produced for which there is no real market.
Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend is generous in giving way again. He has little time left. Does he agree that the credibility of some of the wider European issues is being undermined by failure to reform the CAP?
Mr. Morley: I accept that point absolutely. It is also well recognised by the Prime Minister. If one wants to

53WH
argue for big changes such as adopting the euro, one must address what my hon. Friend rightly describes as an embarrassment. The problem provides a rich seam to mine for those hostile to the concept of Europe and of member states working together. As my hon. Friend said, all sorts of nonsensical policies and potential frauds are involved, which tends to undermine European institutions. Therefore, reform is essential not only for farmers, consumers and the environment but for the credibility of the European Union.

Underground Storage Tanks
1 pm
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: In 1996 and 1997, there were two serious petrol leakages from underground storage tanks in my constituency. Those incidents occurred at Bontddu near Dolgellau and at Llanrwst. Different things happened in each incident, but I wish to refer briefly to what happened in Bontddu.
Details of that pollution incident were received by the Environment Agency locally on 19 September 1996, but some of the villagers at Bontddu had complained of petrol odours to Gwynedd council's trading standards officers in the previous week. It is reasonable to conclude that both were linked, and that the discharge had begun several days before 19 September.
It was subsequently found that there had been a leakage from underground tanks at Bontddu service station into a stream that flows into the Mawddach estuary, which is one of the most environmentally sensitive areas in Wales. The quality of the stream was severely impaired; there were high fish mortalities and some estuary invertebrates were also affected.
During the initial investigation, the Environment Agency ascertained that a volume in excess of 30,000 litres of petrol had leaked from the underground tanks and drained from the immediate vicinity of the site. A meeting was convened on 27 September 1996 between the Environment Agency staff, the garage proprietor, Liquid Cargo Management—an oil recovery specialist—and officers of Gwynedd trading standards and environmental health departments. Certain remedial works were agreed—for example, booming off the river, excavation of the tank in question and flushing the contamination from the ground. By now, the leaked volume was estimated to be in excess of 60,000 litres—twice the original estimate. Families were then evacuated.
Things were proceeding very slowly. The Health and Safety Executive was reticent about becoming involved. Eventually—in November—the HSE was dragged to a public meeting that I chaired; its representative said that it could not become involved unless there was a risk to public safety. With a spillage of 60,000 litres of the most flammable products known to man, it might have been reasonable to conclude that there was a risk—but that was not the case, according to the experts. The HSE continued to say that there was no risk until the first explosion occurred.
The situation dragged on—seemingly interminably—for several months. It became obvious to me—and to many others—that too many players were involved in this drama. The local councils—Gwynedd in the Dolgellau example and Conwy in the Llanrwst example—the HSE and the Environment Agency were all wringing their hands and running around, but none of them were able or willing to take control of the situation. It appears that although there is abundant legislation, none of it gives any authority a lead role; consequently, the whole situation is a bit of a mess.
When I refer to the abundant legislation, I am not exaggerating. For example, there is the Petroleum Spirit (Motor Vehicles etc.) Regulations 1929, the Petroleum

55WH
(Mixtures) Order 1929, the Petroleum (Compressed Gases) Order 1930, the Petroleum (Liquid Methane) Order 1957, the Highly Flammable Liquids and Liquefied Petroleum Gases Regulations 1972, the Petroleum (Regulations) Acts 1928, the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act 1928, the Petroleum Spirit (Plastic Containers) Regulations 1982, and many others.
Given this plethora of legislation, it is incredible that when leakage occurs the HSE will not become involved unless there is a danger to the public. Most people would consider that a danger arises as soon as highly flammable liquid escapes. However, as I have said, that is not the view of the HSE. A senior fire officer from Gwynedd decided that my warnings about the situation being dangerous were without foundation. In my absence, he convened a meeting of local councillors and interested people at Bontddu: he threw a lighted taper into a ravine to show that there was no danger, but caused an explosion and ran for his life. I do not know whether he has now been promoted, but he probably has. That incident shows that danger is occasioned as soon as the liquid escapes.
Despite the fish kill and some birds being killed, too, the Environment Agency did precious little. The situation dragged on for many months, ending up in costly litigation for some families. On 19 November 1997, I raised such worries in an Adjournment debate, in response to which the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), the then Under-Secretary of State for Wales, stressed that under the Water Resources Act 1991 a criminal offence was committed when pollution was caused in controlled waters. Reference was made to the Government's intention to bring into force the provisions of that Act, thus enabling the Environment Agency to require that anti-pollution works be undertaken. That was a useful suggestion. The then Minister also referred to the Government's intention to impose a duty through regulation to make safe all tanks and pipes that were no longer in use. He said that the Government intended to lay such regulations, supported by new guidelines, before the House towards the middle of 1998.
No one would deny that such suggestions were useful, but given the scale of the problem that we will undoubtedly encounter in the next five to 10 years, might it not be better to adopt a proactive stance by assisting retailers to upgrade their tanks now, before the inevitable happens? Financial assistance is a must for many independent retailers. Access to expert advice would be helpful, too. The last thing anyone wants is an acceleration of the already critical rate of closure of independent petrol retailers, especially in rural areas, where the garage is often a general store as well.
I do not want to create panic, but we might be sitting on an environmental time bomb. I was advised in a parliamentary answer in 1997 that from January 1995 to 1997, the Environment Agency had recorded 55 incidents of water pollution from underground petrol storage at filling stations in England and six such incidents in Wales. By contrast, it is estimated that the London fire brigade registers 70 to 80 seepages per annum. In 1994, Shell UK suggested that up to one third of all underground tanks—as many as 10,000—may be faulty. Indeed, most of the United Kingdom's buried
56WH
petrol storage tanks have already exceeded their original design life. There are major leaks from underground storage tanks each year. In the past few years, most major oil companies and several supermarkets have been fined and forced to pay high clean-up costs. Today, The Independent reminded us of the fine of £50,000 that was imposed upon British Petroleum for that reason.
It would be better to be proactive, not reactive. It is all very well to say that the polluter pays and so on, but steps can be taken to deal with the problem before it hits. Margins in the petrol retail market are currently low, so tank owners are reluctant to replace or upgrade tanks. In the past 10 years, the number of UK sites has dropped by almost 35 per cent. More will close if regulatory burdens are increased. I am in favour of a strong regulatory regime to control the underground storage of petrol—a regime that will protect public health and the environment—but any changes must, of necessity, recognise the fragile nature of the industry. The Government's proposal is to remove the licensing of petrol stations and replace it with a system that puts more responsibility on station owners to assess their own risks and to implement improvements. That is a cause of great concern. The new system could lead to greater risks to the public and the environment or to more service stations closing, neither of which would be a good outcome.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has published the approved code of practice, "Groundwater Protection Code: Petrol stations and other fuel dispensing facilities involving underground storage tanks". Under the Groundwater Regulations 1998, the owner of an underground tank would have to provide documentary evidence to demonstrate to the agency that they were following the code, or risk legal action to prevent them from storing fuel underground. If tank owners adopt the recommendations of the code, they can prevent leaks without incurring crippling costs. The main concern, however, is that the agency does not have the resources effectively to enforce the code.
The Environment Agency recently published internal guidance on the design and decommissioning of tanks and it has established a small team to provide guidance to agency staff and to promote better practice in the industry. The 1998 regulations require the agency to check that adequate surveillance is put in place where groundwater may be affected, but many pieces of anecdotal evidence suggest that its enforcement of the regulations is patchy. Most of its staff rely on an ad hoc arrangement with petroleum operatives for day-to-day monitoring of any risk, because they have not resolved the conflicts of interest that have been generated. For most service stations, the only protection against leaks is regular monitoring of fuel stocks. The agency is concerned that most site owners and managers do not have the necessary skills or resources adequately to carry out that task. It is preparing guidance and encouraging training, but until that has an effect, there is a real risk of environmental damage.
On 15 November, the Health and Safety Executive promoted a new set of regulations entitled the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002. The first part will remove the licensing of retail petrol stations, but the main effect will be to bring operational practice into line with the principles of risk management that are common in other

57WH
areas of health and safety legislation. However, problems could occur when the licensing regime is removed, probably next year.
Current proposals suggest that all stations will be given automatic approval based on their existing licensed status and will be required to ask for permission only to make major changes. That might be a disincentive to operators who are planning to invest in their sites to reduce the risk of leaks by installing corrosion protection tank pipe monitoring. It is possible that a conscientious owner trying to reduce risks would be charged by local authorities to obtain permission, but an owner ignoring the problem would avoid scrutiny.
The DEFRA code is welcome, but better co-ordination between the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive is required and greater priority must be given to enforcement. The Government's proposals would create a fairer system, but possibly one with weaker enforcement. The changes could result in an increased risk of environmental damage or harm to human health.
I respectfully put some solutions before the Minister and ask him to respond in writing, if he is not able to do so in this debate. We should consider establishing an agency or appointing an individual to co-ordinate the activities of the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive in this field and to provide an annual report to the appropriate Ministers. We should research the condition of underground tanks to quantify the cost of cleaning up leaks and the potential risk to human health. A condition audit could be attached as a requirement of any new licensing regime. Soft funding should be provided to small independent retailers to help them to upgrade their tanks and pipework, as was the case in Scotland under the old regime before devolution, and continues to be so post-devolution. We should increase resources to train enforcement officers and to strengthen the quality control standards required for wet stock monitoring, and regulate companies providing an off-site service, which is what happens in the United States. Most of those recommendations were incorporated in early-day motion 389, which I tabled and which was well supported.
The Minister is interested in environmental matters, and I am sure that the issue is of concern to some of his ministerial colleagues, too. We are sitting on a large time bomb: in five to 10 years, we will see regular leakages occurring in every locality and the current regulations will not provide any assistance. It is much better to deal with the problem before it occurs than to react to it. It is surely time that the Government took a proactive stance, rather than leaving matters until crises, which will have to be dealt with in haste, inevitably occur.
1.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on securing the debate. He made some sensible suggestions on the important subject of the environmental management and control of underground storage in this country. I understand the problem in his constituency and the severe consequences that stemmed from it. It is an example of why it is important to ensure that we have proper control.
58WH
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point that there are currently some 14,000 petrol stations in England and Wales containing 60,000 to 70,000 underground storage tanks. In addition, there are underground tanks at commercial, industrial and domestic properties, airfields, ports, vehicle fleet depots and a variety of other sites. The issue is important and we need to take it seriously. Given the large number of underground storage tanks, the overall environmental record is good, which is largely because of the stringent regime.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there are no proposals to remove the licensing of underground tanks, which will remain within the regime. Of course, we recognise that we cannot be complacent. The Government, the Environment Agency, the Health and Safety Executive and petroleum licensing authorities need to ensure that the risks are minimised and that the points that he raised are taken seriously and addressed properly.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Groundwater Regulations 1998. They came into force in April 1999 and enhance the groundwater protection afforded by the Water Resources Act 1991. They make it an offence to allow hydrocarbons to enter groundwater, and provide the Environment Agency with powers to prohibit or control activities, including the storage of hydrocarbons, which could pose risks to groundwater.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about lead responsibility, and he mentioned the idea of establishing an agency to co-ordinate activity. The Environment Agency is, however, clear that groundwater pollution, along with any other kind of pollution, is its responsibility. It works closely with the Health and Safety Executive, local authorities and petroleum interests to develop codes and to make sure that the issues are addressed. Co-ordination is therefore quite good, but I shall make sure that the hon. Gentleman's suggestions get the detailed replies that they deserve.
The regulations also allow Ministers to approve codes of practice. The hon. Gentleman mentioned, rightly, the recently produced groundwater protection code, 2,000 copies of which have been distributed to all the main trade organisations. I am sure that he has a copy of it because he referred to it, but he is welcome to have the one that I have brought with me. The code was launched in July 2002 by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment. It sets out principles for groundwater protection, along with relevant advice to help those involved with underground petrol tanks.
The hon. Gentleman pointed out that there are a lot of independent petrol retailers. Like him, I represent a rural area and understand the pressures on rural petrol retailers, whom I do not want to be overburdened by costly regulations. Practical guidance is a good idea because it gives people advice on how to address particular issues.
The code also lists four main principles for environmental protection that would apply to all fuel dispensing facilities involving underground storage tanks. First, there must be a suitable environmental risk assessment, which should identify site-specific risks and indicate the appropriate engineering and operational controls required to protect groundwater. Secondly, appropriate engineering measures identified by the risk assessment should be implemented as soon as is reasonably possible.

59WH
Thirdly, management systems and controls should be in place and should include leak detection, environmental monitoring and the keeping of records on site operation. Fourthly, emergency plans and procedures should be in place and should include an appropriate pollution incident response plan, which should form part of the environmental management system. Those four important basic principles are the framework for a successful risk-based approach to groundwater protection. They are also in line with the type of measures necessary to protect health and safety.
In addition to those four principles, the code sets out the key considerations necessary at each stage—commissioning, operating and, importantly, decommissioning—in the life cycle of an underground storage tank and its related facilities. The section on commissioning facilities provides advice on issues to be addressed during planning, design and construction and emphasises the need to avoid problems in the first place, rather than ironing them out through engineering and operational solutions.
Installing tanks is a lot easier than it was because there is very clear guidance about new designs of tanks and about tank linings. For instance, there is guidance about double-skin tanks, which have detection equipment within the skins so that leaks can be detected straight away. There is a better and wider range of available technology to minimise risk than there used to be.
Mr. Llwyd: I am following the Minister's argument, and I understand the current guidelines and what is being done in relation to newly commissioned sites. My great concern is about the old sites—the small independent sites in particular. At such sites, people may not know whether there is a leak until it is too late.
Mr. Morley: I quite agree, and I was going to come to that point. I was just emphasising that the standards for new-build sites are much higher and the risks are therefore much lower. The hon. Gentleman is right: there are a lot of existing tanks, some of which are becoming quite old.
Another aspect of the code relates to advice on delivery, storage, dispensing, drainage, maintenance and leak detection. The preferred approach in environmentally sensitive areas is to use controls that detect leakage immediately, before it has any significant environmental impact. The assessment of the minimum detectable leak that can be identified by the leakage detection system should be addressed in the environmental risk assessment for the facility. The guidance for existing tanks, particularly in environmentally sensitive areas, is that leak detection procedures should be in place and equipment should be there to monitor that.
The third section of the code relates to decommissioning when tanks have reached the end of their useful life. The code includes advice on emptying and removing tanks and pipework and making safe any tanks that remain in the ground. Finally, the code provides references to more particular advice on, for instance, training and engineering. This is a practical code for existing operators.
60WH
The Government have a range of ways of enforcing the provisions. If there is any suggestion of a problem, the Environment Agency can consider whether to issue a prohibition notice under the groundwater regulations. In making its decision, the agency has to take into account sensitive aquifers and the proximity of drinking water sources, rivers and other receptors. The agency has produced groundwater vulnerability maps, which have been helpful in relation to risk-based assessments and risk-based enforcement. So the agency has that information with which to work.
The agency has also identified groundwater protection zones around abstractions used for sensitive purposes such as water supply or food and drink manufacturing. That is relevant in relation to planning permission for future developments, although I appreciate that the focus of the debate is on existing provision.
The agency has also been developing contacts with individual petrol companies and the Petrol Retailers Association to ensure that the need for environmental protection is clearly understood. The Environment Agency has that range of tools at its disposal in dealing with the existing situation and has other powers under the Water Resources Act 1991. It can serve notices that require preventive or remedial works to be carried out if it considers water to be polluted, or at risk of pollution. The agency will prosecute polluters wherever serious pollution is caused and there is adequate evidence to support the case.
One of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised concerned financial support for certain retailers or owners that have tanks requiring such work. That is a difficult issue, and I will respond in more detail in my promised letter. For his information, the Government are guided in general by the "polluter pays" principle. The general rule for potential polluters is that the costs fall on the individual or company concerned. However, local authorities that have the lead responsibility in dealing with contaminated sites may receive financial support. I appreciate that that is not quite what the hon. Gentleman was talking about, but I will give him a more detailed response after the debate.
In addition to the groundwater measures, the Government have brought into force part 2(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which creates a regime for dealing with contaminated land. That regime supersedes the previous statutory nuisance powers for land contamination issues and places responsibility for identifying and remedying contaminated land on local authorities. That will allow a single operator—normally a local authority—to deal simultaneously with land that is affecting, or is likely to affect, controlled waters. That creates a focused and co-ordinated approach to contaminated land, which also relates to the hon. Gentleman's point.
As well as the new environmental measures, the Government have brought into force the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002. Those regulations are a safety measure aimed at protecting workplaces in which dangerous substances may be present and explosive atmospheres may occur, such as petrol stations. The main requirements are risk assessment, measures to eliminate risk, accident and emergency planning and suitable training. As was mentioned in the previous debate referred to by the hon.

61WH
Gentleman, the HSE is also carrying out a review of the petrol licensing regime with the aim of modernising the regulatory framework, and his concerns will be fully taken into account in that review.
The result of those measures is a modern, good practice framework for managing environmental risks and safety. From the perspective of petrol station owners and operators, there is nothing fundamentally new in the good practice framework. I expect that many of them are applying it as a matter of course, because they are well aware of the risks. Besides issues of safety and contamination, the fact that petrol is not a cheap commodity guides their desire to ensure that tanks do not leak into the ground what they have bought and want to sell for profit. There is a powerful incentive for the petrol retail trade to ensure that the tanks are in good condition. That applies to any other organisation buying fuel or chemicals that are held underground; they are generally an expensive resource. It is in those organisations' interests in terms of good business management to ensure that such tanks are in good condition. That is a powerful incentive.
However, we are not complacent. There will be problems in any system, and there will always be a small minority of people who do not apply the standards in the way one expects. Therefore, we need a dual approach of advice and support through the statutory codes with the back-up of enforcement action if necessary. In that framework, the measures should enhance standards and reduce risk to health and safety and the environment. I appreciate that that is the underlying theme of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Not only did the incident involve a risk to his constituents, but I can see from his comments that there were severe implications for the environment. Although we recognise the need for such activities as part of legitimate business practice, it is important to have standards.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman again on raising the matter. I assure him that we take it very seriously. I have listened carefully to his points, and I shall reply to his specific questions in detail. I appreciate the positive and constructive way in which he has raised this debate and put forward his case.

Smokeless Tobacco
1.30 pm
Paul Flynn: Since the House last met in late December, the number of Britons who have died from smoking is twice the number who were killed in the terrible attack on the twin towers. We have a dreadful toll of 120,000 deaths every year, and we are not reducing that number. The last report of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence on Zyban and nicotine reduction therapies tells us that the number of people smoking has not decreased since 1997, and has probably increased. Some 25 per cent. of 15-year-olds now take up smoking.
The Government are to be congratulated on many of their initiatives. They have plenty of conviction, have made resources available and are determined to reduce that toll. Looking at past records, there is a little room for optimism. This Government will be the first to ban tobacco advertising. The ban will have a substantial effect in terms of discouraging new smokers, although the maximum change will probably be 2 or 3 per cent. fewer new people taking up the drug. There is another good campaign for nicotine replacement therapies, which is imaginative and resourced, and will have an effect. The Government will campaign, advertise and provide education programmes more energetically than previously.
However, one example of a campaign shows what the Government are up against. It is likely that many campaigns, unfortunately, will fail because of the enormous power, resourcefulness and greed of the mendacious lobby from the tobacco industry. It will stop at nothing to sell its products. A campaign in Wales in the mid-1990s, known as Smokebusters, was designed to reduce smoking among young people and was judged a success at the time. It was very energetic and involved a lot of initiatives. Many young people were contacted, and the general feeling of those who launched the campaign was that it was a great success.
Unfortunately, a 50 per cent. increase in smoking among teenage women coincided precisely with that campaign. I have told that story in various countries, as a member of the European Health Committee of the Council of Europe. The response each time—in Malta, Ireland and Canada—has been that there was a similar increase in smoking among teenage women in those countries at that time. The reason was not that campaigns had failed or been counter-productive, but that young women were taking up smoking because they were presented with the idea that smoking was good because it helped them to slim. Peer pressure and role models gave them that ideal of smoking.
We have seen that Governments, with all the best intentions in the world, have had very little success in reducing smoking levels. I can tell the Government that I read their policies and agree with all that they are doing, but we must look at what is happening elsewhere, including an example that has been largely unknown or disregarded: the extraordinary experience in Sweden during the past 20 years of a product almost unique to that country. Known as snus, it is a form of moist snuff. It is interesting that snuff is the only form of tobacco that we are offered freely in this House. It is available from the Doorkeeper, although now little used.

63WH
The amazing result of that product has been an extraordinary reduction in smoking in Sweden and an equally extraordinary reduction in cancers and other health results of smoking. To understand why, we must challenge our preconceptions about the effects of tobacco. Tobacco is not a killer—nicotine is about as dangerous as caffeine. It becomes lethal when we set fire to it. As Martin Jarvis of Cancer Research UK said, 300 lethal toxins explode in a cocktail of carcinogens when a cigarette is lit. The smoke causes problems in our lungs and the carcinogens cause difficulties such as bronchitis, heart disease and so on.
A method that would take nicotine into our bodies and deliver the fix that smokers want without the health risks would be the holy grail. A solution seems to have been found by accident—not by some genius working it out—in Sweden. The result is that the number of male smokers in Sweden has dropped from 36 per cent. In 1980 to 17 per cent. —a bigger reduction than any other country has achieved. However, Sweden still has a level of tobacco use similar to that of other countries because 19 per cent. of males use snus. There is very little use of snus by women in Sweden. On examining the statistics, we find that the level of nicotine-related cancers among males in Sweden is half the European average, while the level for women is almost exactly the same as the European average.
Everyone who studies the effects of moist snuff comes up with the same conclusion. Two distinguished American researchers from the university of Alabama, Brad Lodu and Phillip Cole, have taken a pessimistic view of the health consequences of snus—no product is entirely safe—yet have calculated that the life expectancy of someone who uses snus from the age of 35 would be reduced by only 15 days, whereas the life expectancy of someone who smokes from 35 onwards would he reduced by eight years. The smoker might live to 73, but a non-smoker or a snus user would have a life expectancy of 81.
We cannot ignore the extraordinary evidence from Sweden. For good reasons, the European Union believed that snus should be banned because of the risk of mouth cancers. It seemed a logical and persuasive argument. However, the matter has now been investigated at great length. A Swedish researcher found one case of mouth cancer among 200,000 snus users. Other researchers make similar claims for similar tobaccos in America. It is absolutely certain that the incidence of mouth cancers among smokers and drinkers—alcohol can cause mouth cancer—will be far higher than among snus users. It is significant that those who use moist snuff run virtually no risk of other health ill effects such as lung and larynx cancer, emphysema and all the other problems that result from smoking. Every report on the matter comes up with the same conclusion.
As I said, the EU banned snus because of the risk of mouth cancer. Even if we wanted to, we could not use it. When Sweden joined the EU in 1995, it was given a special derogation to allow the continued use of snus. Every year, more Swedes use snus because of its health benefits.
64WH
The problem that smokers and ex-smokers face is the virulently addictive nature of tobacco. Many people can give it up, but their bodies and brains are dependent on the fix that it provides. The main reason for returning to cigarette smoking after quitting is to reward oneself for having given it up in the first place. Unfortunately, many people who give it up for short periods return to it. If they could experience the same feeling of satisfaction and gratification from other sources by causing the endorphins to work in the brain in the way that they do when they get a shot of nicotine, and could avoid the health problems, that would be fine. That is what all the independent research indicates is happening in Sweden. However, Britain is in the extraordinary position of allowing the almost unfettered sale of tobacco.
The Select Committee on Health referred to the controls on the sale of tobacco as pitiful. Almost anything can be put into tobacco, including addictive substances. Tobacco kills almost half the number of regular users. If there is a case for banning anything, it should be tobacco. We also allow the sale of other chewing tobaccos. Several relatively new tobaccos of questionable provenance have joined gutkha and paan from the far east in being legal and on sale. Snus, however, is banned. There can be no sense in banning a substance that has a proven record of reducing health problems and deaths.
The Government have followed the simple policy of "quit or die": one must carry on smoking or give up altogether. There is a "third way"—to coin a phrase—that has been effective. There is a case currently before the European courts that snus should be removed from the list of banned tobaccos, which is a decision that the British Government and other Governments will have to take. I discussed this at some length with Swedes who have an ambivalent view of what is happening in their country. They are not naturally attracted to the idea of harm reduction but take an absolutist line in many of their policies on drugs. However, we cannot afford to do that when there is a possibility of achieving the sort of health improvements that the Swedes are achieving. Most of the organisations in the field in this country and throughout the world support renewed consideration of the ban and new ways of reducing the problems caused by tobacco.
On 10 December, the Royal College of Physicians produced a report in which it joined the call made by the Health Committee in 2000 for a regulatory authority to protect public health from the problems associated with tobacco. We are failing to give smokers sufficient protection from cigarettes, and there is much to be done. However, we are banning what is probably the safest form of oral tobacco, and allowing other forms of tobacco into the country that potentially are far more dangerous.
We need a body to decide which of the tobaccos on offer are the most carcinogenic and toxic and to give advice. It may be necessary to ban some chewing tobaccos, but the difference between snus and the others is that snus is absorbed in a way that does not involve chewing and so does not cause the lesions inside the mouth that other forms of tobacco might cause. It is taken in a safe way in which there is no direct contact between the skin and the tobacco.

65WH
The Royal College of Physicians says that tobacco is a uniquely dangerous consumer product that kills more than 120,000 people a year in the United Kingdom when used as intended by the manufacturer, yet it is not as highly regulated as are prescription drugs and food. It recommends a regulatory authority, as it did in its report "Nicotine Addiction in Britain", and complains that the Government largely ignored that recommendation. It also says that new reduced-risk cigarettes and smokeless tobacco are being designed. How will the Government handle issues such as relative risk, analyse the claims of such products and decide what information would be helpful to smokers? We need to encourage the development and production of new nicotine products. They face much stricter regulations than cigarettes. How can that make sense? How can it be rational to turn our back on the terrible dangers of cigarettes in many cases and allow them to be freely sold? They are available even to young people. Yet we still have a ban on a product that could well be a lifesaver for half the present smokers in the country.
I am grateful to Action on Smoking and Health, the organisation that has done so much over the years on this issue. It takes a line that is similar to the one that I want to present today. It has courageously taken on the smoking lobby over many years and achieved many victories against them. I have no commercial axe to grind on this or anything else. A company is manufacturing this product and although we would not necessarily want Britain to become involved in Swedish Match's products, we should learn the lesson from this. When we look ahead we must realise the truth of all our anti-smoking campaigns. A hard core of millions of smokers cannot and will not give up. They will be addicted to tobacco to their early graves. We can offer them an alternative of using a form of tobacco that will spare them that early grave and will give them the same type of life expectancy as non-smokers.
The evidence is overwhelming. I hope that the Government will take it into account. What will they do when Swedish Match seeks a judicial review of the ban that can no longer be defended? When it comes to court, the European Union, or other countries in the EU, must defend why snus should be so uniquely difficult, poisonous, and carcinogenic that it must be banned while other products are not. I believe that no case can be made on those lines.
Will the Government act now to do what many organisations, including the Royal College of Physicians, have suggested and set up a regulatory body that will decide on the toxicity and carcinogenic properties of all forms of tobacco? Close members of my family died tragic premature deaths as a result of smoking: my father was 43 and my brother was 57. Others will have had similar experiences. We owe it to all those who are smoking now to give them all the alternatives that are available, so that they can escape from the tyranny of their addiction and into using products that will guarantee them a normal full lifespan.
1.48 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): I welcome the opportunity to speak today on the health aspects of smokeless tobacco. I recognise the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) in highlighting
66WH
this serious subject. On his last point, my father died from throat cancer caused by the effects of tobacco. I have felt this personally. My hon. Friend refers specifically to the case that is currently before the UK courts. He will understand the conventions of this House and why it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the specifics of that case or to put the Government's position here.
My hon. Friend spoke passionately about the Swedish snus, but I should like to talk more generally about oral tobacco. It would be remiss of me if I did not put the Government's case and declare our commitment to tackling tobacco addiction. Tobacco has been with us for about 400 years and it remains with us for the simple reason that nicotine is addictive. There are many ways of taking nicotine, but smoking is by far the most efficient and the most dangerous. As the 1998 White Paper starkly put it, "Smoking kills". It is as simple as that.
In any one year smoking is responsible for about 120,000 deaths in this country—one in five of all deaths. It is the principal cause of inequalities in death rates between the rich and the poor. The treatment of its consequences is staggering: it costs the national health service £1.5 billion a year. The addictive properties of nicotine and the range of cancers and respiratory diseases associated with smoking are universally acknowledged. If cigarettes were to be introduced today, I have no doubt that their production and sale would be banned without delay. Unfortunately, with a 400-year history of social acceptance we cannot seriously consider doing that. However, we will continue to make every effort to warn people of the dangers of the habit and to help those who are addicted to break free.
Much that my hon. Friend is suggesting would mean that the Government would take a step-down approach to nicotine, but we should take a step-off position. We want people to break the addiction or not to take up the habit in the first place, and that is where we should concentrate our efforts.
The addictive properties of nicotine ensure that tobacco users find it difficult to break free from its influence, but the crux of the debate is that the delivery route—the tobacco itself—presents the health dangers. There might appear to be benefits in persuading tobacco users to switch from smoking, the most dangerous manifestation of the habit, to the less dangerous, oral tobacco, but no form of tobacco is completely safe. We firmly believe that the only sensible course is to persuade people to give up tobacco and to provide them with the help and support necessary to do so. It must be right for the Department of Health to be in the business of health promotion.
I am not sure that it is correct to suggest that there are no known health consequences of oral tobacco. We are spending a considerable sum on a comprehensive programme designed to inform the public of the damage caused by smoking and to provide a range of services helping those smokers who want to give up. The services include free telephone helplines, counselling and support and the provision of nicotine replacement therapy and Zyban on NHS prescription. We began those services in the poorest communities and they are

67WH
now available nationwide. Our approach is not just about getting people to quit smoking but ensuring that people, especially the young, never start.
The £59 million that we have invested in the past four years in anti-smoking advertising is making a difference. Seven in 10 smokers say that they want to quit and it is our job to help them to do so. After years of obstruction in the courts and in Europe, we now have legislation banning tobacco advertising and promotion. From the middle of next month, press and billboard advertising of tobacco will be a thing of the past in this country—a fact which we should all be proud of and grateful for. By October next year, all cigarette packets will carry new and much starker health warnings on the front and back. The misleading doublespeak of "mild" and "light" will also disappear.
My hon. Friend gives the Government some credit in this regard. We have more than good intentions. The financial investment that we have made suggests that, as do the early results.
Paul Flynn: I should like to measure the Government's ambition with regard to their policies. They say in their response to the Health Committee's report that their ambition is to get smoking levels among males in the poorest areas down to 26 per cent. by 2010, but in Sweden currently the level of smoking among males is down to 17 per cent. as a result of the use of snus. How on earth can we say that we are doing the right thing or the only thing when, even by our own ambitions, we will not get anywhere near the improvement that has been achieved in Sweden over the past 20 years?
Mr. Lammy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend: he makes the case for me. Sweden is unique in Europe in having the very specific habit of using oral tobacco. That has been the case since the second world war.
Paul Flynn: For centuries.
Mr. Lammy: My hon. Friend corrects me: the Swedish habit of using oral tobacco has existed for centuries, whereas we in this country have smoked tobacco. The banning of advertising and our investment in smoking cessation—Zyban is available on the NHS
68WH
to help people to stop smoking—are relatively new. In fact, it is a two-and-a-half-year programme, but we are on the journey. My hon. Friend will forgive me for wanting to allow the efforts being made to bed down and for questioning ever so slightly—I do not want to put this too strongly—the emphasis on what is happening in Sweden, when that has gone on for some considerable time. As I have suggested, cultural habits in Sweden are different from those in this country. Here, only coal miners, who could not smoke in the pits, and some seafarers were in the habit of using oral tobacco. That is relevant.
Let me return to our achievements. Smoking rates have fallen, and the fall has been greatest among those in manual occupations. The newly established NHS cessation services have helped almost 220,000 smokers to kick the habit for good. Let us consider the figures for England in the past year. The figure for teenage girls is now 11 per cent. vis-à-vis 15 per cent. in 1998, and the figure for boys is 8 per cent. vis-à-vis 18 per cent. in 1998, so things are moving in the right direction.
Many smokers recognise the dangers of a smoking habit, but either have no wish to give up nicotine or find it too difficult to do without it. They have therefore sought alternative means of delivery of the drug. That search has resulted in various forms of smokeless tobacco—tobacco products that are designed to be chewed or sucked. In this country, the phrase "oral tobacco" used to mean simply the old-fashioned chewing of tobacco, normally in the form of a plug.
Another category consists of products that are available in the south Asian communities, to which my hon. Friend drew attention. Tobacco is mixed with a number of other substances to produce paan. Those products vary in content and presentation, and some, which masquerade as sweets, appear to be designed to appeal to younger members of the community. I assure my hon. Friend that that is the subject of an inquiry by trading standards officers, and the Government are keeping a close eye on it. Although legal, all those products carry health risks, such as various oral and dental disorders and, most seriously, cancers affecting the jaw, tongue and oral cavity. We are therefore developing particular strands of our tobacco information campaign to address the various ethnic differences.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Devolution
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Advocate-General what devolution issues have been raised since 26 November 2002. [89155]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave today to the hon. Lady the Member for the Vale of York (Miss McIntosh),official Report, 7 January 2003, column 10.

  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Advocate-General what devolution issues she has considered since 1 December 2002. [89157]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  Since 1 December 2002, 32 devolution issue cases have been intimated to me, all but one relating to criminal law. All of these have concerned human rights issues, a substantial number concerned undue delay in criminal proceedings, others included cases on the fixing of the punishment part of the sentence of a life prisoner to replace the old system of serving an indeterminate length of sentence and the powers of the Crown to use surveillance tapes from prison visiting rooms as evidence in a trial. The one civil case involved delay in an appeal from the application of a children's panel reporter to the sheriff for an interim exclusion order.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Advocate-General in how many cases she has intervened since 1 October 2002 on human rights issues. [89156]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  Since 1 October 2002, I have not intervened in any new cases on human rights issues. However, I did appear in person before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on 15 to 17 October 2002 in the case of Rv. Her Majesty's Advocate and the Advocate-General. This case involved delay in bringing criminal proceedings and breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Clerks
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the honourable Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission how many(a) Clerks of the House and (b) Clerks of Committees are (i) black and (ii) Asian. [89325]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  The House of Commons Commission currently employs 303 individual members of staff (including part-timers) in the Department of the 64W
  Clerk of the House. Of these, 241 (approximately 80 per cent.) have completed ethnic monitoring forms, which are voluntary. The figures for members of staff in post on 31 December 2002 were:

  Of staff in the Department of the Clerk of the House, 3.31 per cent. declared themselves to be from ethnic minorities, of whom:

  1.24 per cent. declared themselves to be black

  2.07 per cent. declared themselves to be Asian

  Of Committee staff, 5.18 per cent. declared themselves to be from ethnic minorities, of whom:

  2.59 per cent. declared themselves to be black

  2.59 per cent. declared themselves to be Asian

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Judicial Appointments
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary Lord Chancellor's Department what steps the Lord Chancellor is taking to amend the appointments system to increase the diversity of the judiciary. [89166]

  Yvette Cooper
  Since taking up office in 1997 the Lord Chancellor has introduced many improvements to the judicial appointments process aimed at promoting equality of opportunity and greater diversity within the judiciary, as follows:Establishing the Commission for Judicial Appointments to oversee the procedures and deal with complaints
  Piloting an assessment centre
  Removing lower and upper age limits for most appointments Setting up a work shadowing scheme
  Arranging events about judicial appointments to talk openly about the appointments procedures and encourage applications
  Publicising criteria and appointments procedures, including on diversity, in booklets, on the LCD website and in a video
  Publishing the Judicial Appointments annual report since October 1999, which includes statistical information about the appointment of women and people of minority ethnic origin
  Liasing with the legal profession on diversity issues, for example, through the Joint Working Party on Equal Opportunities in Judicial Appointments
  Introducing a salaried part-time working facility and flexible part-time sitting arrangements for those who have had career breaks for family reasons
  Abolishing the system of appointments to the High Court bench by invitation only
  Involving judicial and lay members in more aspects of the selection process
  Amending the appointment criteria following recommendations by the Joint Working Party on Equal Opportunities in Judicial Appointments
  Confirming publicly that homosexuality is not a bar to appointment
  Confirming that advocacy experience is not a prerequisite for judicial appointment
  Supporting appraisal and mentoring schemes
  Improving application and consultation forms and guidance
  Researching factors that affect (especially) women and ethnic minority lawyers in deciding whether to apply to be judges
  Opening opportunities to become recorders to blind people.
  65W

  Access to Children (Germany)
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will take steps to contact parents who have reported prevention of access to their children in Germany to the Child Abduction Unit, to determine if their problems remain and offer them assistance as appropriate; and what progress has been made on Lady Meyer's case. [89055]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Child Abduction Unit discharges the Lord Chancellor's functions as Central Authority under the 1980 Hague and European Conventions. Article 21 of the Hague Convention enables applications via the designated Central Authorities to make arrangements for organising or securing the effective exercise of rights of access, and the European Convention enables a person who has obtained in one Contracting State a decision on rights of access to apply via the Central Authorities for the purpose of having the decision recognised or enforced in another Contracting State. Any parent resident in England and Wales whose child is resident in Germany may apply to the Child Abduction Unit; but there are no plans to contact parents who have reported difficulties but have not made such an application.

  No such application has been made in Lady Meyer's case.

  Access to Children (Overseas)
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will take act ions against countries that deny British parents reasonable access to their children held abroad. [89054]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor is designated as the Central Authority for England and Wales and Northern Ireland under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and European Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions concerning Custody of Children and on the Restoration of Custody and Children. Should there be clear evidence of countries which are contracting states to those conventions holding children of British parents and denying those parents reasonable access to their children in breach of their obligations under the conventions, consideration would of course be given to all appropriate courses of action to rectify the situation.

  Child Abduction
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Lord Chancellor's Department will produce a yearly report presenting the results of legal proceedings abroad sought to settle disputes related to child abduction. [89053]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Child Abduction Unit, which discharges the functions of the Lord Chancellor as Central Authority under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and European Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions concerning Custody of Children and on the Restoration of Custody and Children, maintains statistics on applications under those conventions in respect of children brought to and taken from England and Wales.
  66W
  A summarised version of those statistics appears as part of the annual report of the Official Solicitor and Public Trustee, the latest version of which was published in October 2002. A copy is in the Libraries of both Houses and is also available on the OSPT website.

  Domestic Violence
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list legislation involving protection for survivors of domestic violence which has not been brought into force, stating the reasons in each case. [88311]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Section 60 of Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996 has not been implemented. This section would give the Lord Chancellor the power to make rules to allow a prescribed person, or category of person, to act on behalf of survivors of domestic violence.

  It was not implemented in 1997 with Part IV in order to give the courts, police, practitioners and others time to become familiar with the new law and gain experience in its operation before considering the introduction of new procedures and responsibilities of this nature.

  The Lord Chancellor's Department commissioned research to assess the effectiveness of current remedies for domestic violence and understand the practical impact on individuals of third party applications. The research report has now been considered by our Domestic Violence Advisory Group, which includes representation from the police, voluntary sector, judiciary and others. The group concluded that the problems identified in the research would not be most effectively addressed by implementing section 60. A sub-group of the advisory group will now consider these problems and recommend how best to tackle them.

  E-voting
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what measures the Lord Chancellor intends to take to ensure e-participation is included in e-voting pilots. [89165]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  The local e-voting electoral modernisation pilot programme is the responsibility of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. In conjunction with the Electoral Commission, the Office of the e-Envoy and local authorities, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is exploring what more can usefully be done—before, during and after the electoral process—to ensure the e-voting pilot programme takes full advantage of the opportunities afforded by the advent of new technologies. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's aim is to engage with and better inform voters and other key stakeholders of the electoral process, increase the opportunity for voting and maintain the integrity and security of the ballot.

  Immigration Appellate Authority
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the average length of time was from explanatory statement receipt to the
  67W
  fixing of a hearing date by the Immigration Appellate Authority in the last year for which figures are available. [88566]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information is not kept on the average length of time from the explanatory statement receipt to the fixing of a hearing date by the Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA). However, for immigration and asylum cases received in the 12 months period ending 30 June 2002 the average time from receipt was:

  six weeks for First Hearing; and

  15 weeks to the Substantive Hearing.

  Land Tribunal
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many cases have been brought before the Land Tribunal in each of the last three years; and if she will make a statement. [89326]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In the last three years, 1,421 cases have been brought before the Lands Tribunal. 501 were for the year ending December 2000; 515 for the year ending December 2001 and 405 for the year ending December 2002.

  Returning Officers
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what regulations there are on the supply by returning officers of labels containing electors' details to political parties or other interested parties. [88276]

  Yvette Cooper
  Current regulations do not provide for the supply of labels which include details of electors to authorised users. Such supply was discontinued because electoral registers are now available in data form.

  Small Claims Court
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans the Lord Chancellor has to review the(a) rules governing and (b) guidance offered to judges presiding in the Small Claims Court concerning their conduct to litigants in person; and if he will introduce independent assessors to monitor the observance of such rules and guidance. [88238]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There are no rules relating specifically to judges in small claims cases dealing with litigants in person, and the Lord Chancellor has no current plans to introduce any.

  The Judicial Studies Board, an independent body, provides guidance to judges on the conduct of small claims cases in its Civil Bench Book and on the particular needs of litigants in person in its Equal Treatment Bench Book. Both publications are available on the JSB's website (www.jsboard.co.uk).

  The Lord Chancellor expects judges to uphold the highest standards of probity, impartiality, courtesy and consideration in dealing with all litigants. Where it is alleged that a judge has failed to meet these standards, the Lord Chancellor, as Head of the Judiciary, is able to
  68W
  consider any complaint that is made about the judge's conduct. He has no plans to introduce independent assessors to monitor the Judiciary's dealings with litigants in person.

  Weekend Voting
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment she has made of the feasibility of weekend voting. [88560]

  Yvette Cooper
  We plan to assess the feasibility of weekend voting after 31 January in the light of responses to the consultation paper "Combining English Local Authority, Greater London Authority and European Parliament Elections in 2004" (issued jointly with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister), which (among other things I also seeks views on weekend voting.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Divisions
  Ms Drown
  To ask the President of the Council what plans he has to propose steps to reduce time taken to record votes in the House. [89175]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  In his memorandum of December 2001 to the Modernisation Committee, my right. hon. Friend asked the question whether views in the House on electronic voting have changed since Members were consulted in the last Parliament. He stressed that any form of electronic voting should require Members to attend Divisions in person, but could remove the need for multiple Divisions.

  House of Lords Reform
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Council if he will make a statement on proposals for further reform of the House of Lords. [89172]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply today to my hon. Friend the Member for the City of York (Hugh Bayley),official Report, 7 January 2003, column 19.

  Parliament
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Council (1) if he will bring forward proposals for changing the arrangements for the recall of Parliament; [88909]

  (2) if he will bring forward proposals to improve the legal advice available to Parliament. [88911]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I have no plans to do so.

  Parliamentary Accountability
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals for enhancing the role of Parliament in decisions to deploy British forces in armed conflict overseas. [88910]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I have no plans to do so. The Government have repeatedly given Parliament the opportunity to debate decisions about the deployment of British forces in armed conflict overseas.
  69W

  Pre-legislative Scrutiny
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Council what steps he is taking to alert Departments to the new opportunities for pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills for next session's legislative programme. [88930]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Government want to ensure that more Bills are published in draft and can receive pre-legislative scrutiny, and I am working closely with other Departments to achieve this aim.

SCOTLAND

  Employment
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment she has made of the benefits for employment and enterprise in Scotland arising out of the Copenhagen summit. [89142]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Scotland is well placed to take advantage of the new opportunities which enlargement of the European Union will create.

  Business Insolvency (North-East Scotland)
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment she has made of the trend in small business insolvencies in north-east Scotland. [89146]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office does not routinely compile insolvency data. The latest official figures on company liquidations in Scotland were released by the Department of Trade and Industry on 1 November 2002. The data is not published on a regional basis within Scotland.

  Broadband
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with small business representatives in Scotland regarding the development of broadband services in rural areas. [89147]

  Mrs. McGuire
  My right hon. Friend and I meet regularly with the small business representative organisations in Scotland. Our discussions cover a wide range of concerns, including the development of broadband services. The small business community will be taking an interest in the outcome of the Scottish Executive programme to roll out pilot projects in the Highlands and Islands and Dumfries and Galloway areas.

  Shipbuilding
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on shipbuilding on the Clyde. [89148]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I recently announced the publication of the Government's response to the Scottish Affairs Committee report on shipbuilding on the Clyde. I recognise the significance of the shipbuilding industry within Scotland's manufacturing base and to the West of Scotland in particular. The Scotland Office maintains extensive contacts with the shipyard management at the 70W
  most senior levels to discuss opportunities and I am specifically committed to supporting and promoting export opportunities for the Clyde shipyards.

  The Clyde yards currently benefit from significant Government orders and have the opportunity to compete for work on the Future Carrier programme from a position of strength.

  European Union Business
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what efforts she is making to ensure that the(a) Scottish Executive and (b) Scottish Parliament are fully informed of European Union matters. [89149]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government involves the Scottish Executive as fully as possible on European Union matters touching on devolved areas of responsibility, in accordance with "The Memorandum of Understanding and The Concordat on Co-ordination of European Union Policy Issues".

  It is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive to inform the Scottish Parliament of relevant European Union matters. Explanatory Memoranda on European Community documents prepared by Whitehall departments are copied to the devolved Administrations. The Scottish Executive routinely pass these to the Scottish Parliament, which can request further explanation from the Executive in the form of a Scottish Covering Note.

  Postcomm
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions she has had with Postcomm regarding deregulation of postal services in Scotland. [89150]

  Mrs. McGuire
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 26 November 2002,official Report, column 166W.

  Manufacturing Sector
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action she is taking in conjunction with business and industry interests to tackle the problems faced by the manufacturing sector in Scotland. [89144]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I will continue to work closely with the Scottish Executive and with my colleagues in Government to ensure that the interests of the manufacturing sector in Scotland are understood.

  Scotland Office
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she will announce the proposed operating costs of the Scotland Office for the financial year 2003–04. [89145]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Details of my Department's expenditure in 2003–04 will be published with the Main Supply Estimates, in the spring.

CABINET OFFICE

  Millennium Bug
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) how much was spent on the Millennium Bug Campaign in each year from 1990; and if he will make a statement; [88811]

  (2) what evaluation has taken place of the Millennium Bug Campaign; who undertook the consultation; what the overall costs were; and if he will make a statement. [88813]

  Mr. Alexander
  The total spend on the Millennium Bug public information campaign was £16million. The estimated cost of the work to prepare central Government IT systems for the century date change was £380million.

  The Government's Millennium Bug preparations were a huge success, with the UK almost untouched by the bug. The work also had wide reaching benefits to the entire modernising Government agenda. These were drawn out in the command paper 'Modernising Government in Action: Realising the benefits of Y2K', which was placed in the Library of the House on 18 April 2000.

  Paper Purchases
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how the Cabinet Office defines sustainably managed sources, in relation to purchasing paper supplies. [88705]

  Mr. Alexander
  Cabinet Office defines `sustainably managed sources', in relation to purchasing paper supplies, as forests supplying paper mills with wood which are tyPlcally managed in accordance with IS014001 environmental management systems (EMS) and Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) programs.

  Postcodes
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what use the Cabinet Office and its agencies makes of postcode areas for(a) the collection and publication of data, (b) devising formulae for the distribution of grants and awards and (c) the delivery of services; and when usages were last reviewed. [87770]

  Mr. Alexander
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The Office of the e-Envoy in the Cabinet Office is responsible for running and maintaining the UK online website. Postcode information is collected from those registering for consultations with a view to better understanding user requirements and tailoring future services accordingly.

  UK Online Interactive does not currently routinely collect postcode information from users. However, Somerset County Council have been collecting postcode information through UK Online Interactive in order to present locally tailored information back to the user. A project is currently being planned which will extend this facility to the rest of the service, collecting postcode information derived from the set top box or entered by the user.
  72W
  The Office of the e-Envoy also uses postcode area data to map the availability and take-up of online technologies. These maps are used in the development of the Government's policy aimed at reducing the 'digital divide'.

  (b) The Cabinet Office currently makes no use of postcode data in devising formulae for the distribution of grants and awards.

  (c) The Government Car and Despatch Agency operates two services. The InterDespatch Service makes use of postcodes as a building identifier for its delivery and collection services. The Government Car Service uses postcodes in conjunction with an autoroute system to identify addresses for the Plck up/set down of passengers. Both these uses are under constant review.

  Staff Bonuses
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) how much each Government Department has paid in bonuses to staff who achieved personal targets in this financial year; [88303]

  (2) how many Departments which have failed to achieve Government targets have paid staff bonuses. [88304]

  Mr. Alexander
  Responsibility for pay, outside of the senior civil service, is delegated to Departments and agencies. What bonuses are paid to these staff is therefore a matter for individual Departments and agencies. This Information is not held centrally.

  The new pay and performance management arrangements for the senior civil service are designed to reward and provide incentives for high performance. Under these arrangements all Departments awarded non-consolidated bonuses to their top performers.

  Performance bonuses totalling £6 million were paid to those who contributed most to their Department's objectives. Bonuses were paid to around 55 per cent. of senior civil service staff.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  ARC Scheme
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when a decision will be made on preserved rights and beneficiaries of the ARC scheme. [89113]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government have made clear their intention to introduce preserved rights for existing beneficiaries of the Accommodation for Residential Care (ARC) concessionary television licence scheme, when the social mix or the level of warden cover in their sheltered housing change. The regulations governing the ARC scheme are complex and the structure of the proposed changes remains under consideration, but we shall bring forward amending regulations as soon as is compatible with the need to avoid creating new anomalies or unnecessary administrative burdens.

  BBC (Production Quota)
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if she will reform the
  73W
  independent production quota for the BBC to (a) minimise exclusions to qualifying hours and (b) calculate the quota per channel by (i) qualifying hours and (ii) spending; [88695]

  (2) she intends to announce the Government's response to the Independent Television Commission's Programme Supply Review. [88668]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government's response to the ITC's UK Programme Supply Review will be announced within the next two weeks. This response will include details of the amendments we intend to make to the Communications Bill and the BBC's Agreement, including in relation to the independent productions quota.

  Children's HosPlces (Lottery Funding)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the progress of allocating Lottery funding for children's hosPlces. [88631]

  Mr. Caborn
  The New Opportunities Fund children's palliative care programme was launched in March 2002 and closed in August 2002. Applications for all three strands of the programme (children's hosPlce provision, home based teams and bereavement services) are currently in assessment. A decision making committee will meet in January 2003 to consider which applications to fund. Applicants will then be informed whether or not their bid has been successful. Details of all the awards made will be announced shortly after this.

  Licensing Bill
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she made of the compatibility of the objectives of the Licensing Bill with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, with particular reference to the prevention of nuisance. [88532]

  Dr. Howells
  On the face of the Licensing Bill, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for the Arts stated under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act that in her view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.

  Lottery Funds (West Cumbria)
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what Lottery funds have been given to the towns of Workington and Maryport in West Cumbria. [88842]

  Mr. Caborn
  Information on Lottery awards is provided from the National Lottery awards database, which is based upon information provided to us by the distributing bodies. While it is possible to search the database for information relating to specific towns, it is not mandatory for this information to be included in the dataset. This means that some awards relating to a specific town may not appear in the total figure shown.

  The database shows that Lottery awards totalling a minimum of £8,455,887 have been made to Workington and totalling a minimum of £1,060,968 have been made to Maryport.

  Museums and Galleries
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to her answer of 2 December 2002,official Report, column 539W, on museums and galleries, if she will place the efficiency review of national museums and galleries sponsored by her Department in 1999–2000 in the Library. [88932]

  Dr. Howells
  A copy of the Efficiency Review of national museums and galleries was placed in the House of Commons Library following its publication in September 1999. It can also be viewed on my Department's website at www.culture.gov.uk

  Sporting Events
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she has plans to increase the number of major sporting events which must be shown on terrestrial television; and if she will make a statement. [88305]

  Dr. Howells
  There are no immediate plans to review the list of sporting and other national events. However, the Government aim to keep the list under regular review, and if significant changes take place either in the public perception of what events are of national importance, or in the economics of sports rights, the Government would look at the matter again.

  Sustainable Procurement
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how her Department defines sustainable procurement, in relation to its Environmental Management System. [88704]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave her on 7 November 2002,official Report, column 544W. That answer is in complete agreement with the requirements of the Departmental Environmental Management System, an initiative which has the whole hearted support of the Green Minister (Baroness Blackstone), the Department's Environmental Champions, senior officials and staff.

  TV Licences
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she plans to change the cost of a TV licence for students; and if she will make a statement. [88273]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government have no plans to change the cost of television licences for students. Students pay the standard licence fee and are subject to the normal licensing requirements. We have received representations calling for concessions for students but it would be difficult to justify giving priority to students over the many other groups with a case for special treatment.

DEFENCE

  Appointees
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list current appointees on the(a) board of the

  75W
  RAF Museum, (b) board of the Royal Marines Museum, (c) board of the Royal Navy Submarine Museum, (d) Advisory Committee on Conscientious Objectors, (e) Review Board for Government Contracts, (f) board of the National Army Museum and (g) Defence Scientific Advisory Council. [89052]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Board of the RAF Museum

  Chair

  Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Johns GCB CBE LVO FRAeS RAF (Retd.)

  Trustees

  The right hon. Baroness Blatch CBE

  Mr. L. A. Edwards (Anthony) BSc MBA CEng FRAeS

  Sir Neil Cossons MA FSA FMA FRSA CBE

  Sir Gerald Hosker KCB QC

  The right hon. Sir Geoffrey Pattie BSc PhD

  Sir R. H. Evans CBE

  Dr. Judith Rowbotham

  Air Vice Marshal David Crwys-Williams CB (MD SSVC)

  Lord Clarke of Hampstead

  Mr.Victor Gauntlett FRSA FIMI FINSTPET

  Mr. Alastair Stewart

  His Excellency Air Marshall I. D. McFadyen CB OBE FRAeS RAF (Retd.)

  Professor R. J. Overy MA PhD FRHists

  Mr. D. E. Young Sir Roger Jackling

  Mr. Michael Dale CBE Lord Evans of Watford

  (b) Board of the Royal Marines Museum

  Sir Henry Beverley KCB OBE

  Captain Brian Gibbs RM Retired

  Councillor M. Geddes

  Lt Col Andrew Noyse RM Retd.

  Colonel M. Sturman OBE

  W01 (RSM) J. Forster RM

  Councillor M. Hancock CBE MP

  (c) Board of the Royal Navy Submarine Museum

  Vice Admiral Sir Roy Newman KCB JP DL

  Rear Admiral Niall Kilgour

  Dr. Martin Copp

  Rear Admiral Paul Hodinott CB OBE

  Captain Terry Meadows CBE

  Mr. Tim Schadla-Hall

  Mr. Louis Shermer-Smith OBE

  Mr. Tom Walters BEM

  Councillor Mike Geddes

  Mr. Robin Webb

  (d) Advisory Committee on Conscientious Objectors

  His Honour Judge Harris

  Mr. C. M. Lake

  Mr. A. G. Corless

  Mrs. L. L. Phipps

  Mr. K. N. Walton

  76W

  (e) Review Board for Government Contracts

  George Staples CB QC

  Fraser Ashman

  Sir Alan Bailey KCB

  Dr. Alan Fox

  Chris Melrose

  (f) Council of the National Army Museum

  Field Marshal Sir John Chapple GCB CBE DL The Hon. David McAlpine

  Mr. Richard Marriott

  Sir Nigel Mobbs JP

  The Rt. Reverend Peter J. Nott

  Professor Hew Strachan MA Phd FRHistS The Lady Vaizey

  General Sir John Waters GCB CBE JP DL

  (g) Defence Scientific Advisory Council

  Professor A. Ledwith

  Professor R. Needham

  Dr. D. J. Price

  Mr. P. J. Stein

  Dr. A. L. Mears

  Dr. L. V. Bennett

  Professor P. G. Blain

  Professor A. J. Kinloch

  Professor R. Voles

  Air Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup

  Lt Gen R C Menzies

  Mr. G. H. B. Jordan

  Mr. M. Earwicker

  Mr. P. Roper

  Mr. P. D. Ewins

  Professor D. King

  Dr. A. Keddy

  Brave Millennium
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the recommendations arising out of the 1999 Integrated Contingency Planning exercise Brave Millennium have been accepted by his Department; what money has been spent to cover the cost of these commitments since 1999; what recommendations have not been accepted by his Department; what the basis was of such decisions; and if he will make a statement. [87796]

  Mr. Ingram
  Exercise Brave Millennium examined high-level aspects of integrated contingency planning, improving awareness of the key issues affecting the Ministry of Defence's ability to respond quickly and efficiently to any request for assistance from civil authorities.

  As a result of the exercise 57 areas for further work were highlighted, some of it involving other Government Departments/agencies, such as the Home Office, the Police, and the Department of Health.

  Most of that work has been completed and a number of actions taken. Many of these entailed the modification of existing processes and procedures. Work is in hand on a small number of outstanding

  77W
  issues. The expenditure involved is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The second Brave Millennium, held in March 2002, confirmed that improvements to integrated contingency planning processes had been made, while further improvements will result from the Strategic Defence Review New Chapter.

  British Nuclear Tests (Compensation)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been paid in compensation to ex-servicemen and medical auxiliaries who attended British nuclear tests and have suffered consequent illness. [89019]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Department's consistent line is that we have every confidence in the independent studies carried out by the National Radiological Protection Board and the Imperial Cancer Research Fund that showed veterans' participation in the nuclear test programme has not had a detectable effect on their expectation of life, or on their risk of developing cancer or other fatal diseases. Consequently no compensation has been paid to British nuclear test veterans.

  Challenger 2
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made with the development of camouflage nets for the Challenger 2 tank; what estimate he has made of the costs of development; and what trials have been carried out. [87045]

  Mr. Ingram
  Challenger 2 already has an effective counter-surveillance capability. We are investigating ways to further improve this capability. I am withholding specific details of the developments under Exemption 1 (defence, security and international relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Cruise Missiles
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Cruise missiles are available for operations; what logistics and support operations are required; and if he will make a statement. [89276]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am withholding this information in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Defence, Security and International Relations).

  Hostage Taking
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 9 December 2002,official Report, column 16W, if the considerable and compelling evidence of systematic and continuous grave breaches of the fourth Geneva Convention included considerable and compelling evidence of the crime of hostage taking; whether anyone was named in the report as being suspected of the crime of hostage taking, and what recommendations were made in the report for further action on the issue of (a) hostage taking and (b) war crimes referred to in the report. [88513]
  78W
  Mr. Ingram
  As I explained in my answer of 27 November 2002,official Report, column 335W the report itself is a summary of evidence drawn from the statements of individuals who witnessed or were subject to alleged acts of Iraqi brutality during the Gulf War. The Ministry of Defence has a duty to protect the confidentiality of those who co-operated with the Royal Military Police.

  The Royal Military Police were tasked with determining the facts alone. Their final report makes no recommendations.

  Iraq
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of Iraq is covered by no-fly sanctions; and if he will make a statement. [88530]

  Mr. Ingram
  The no fly zones cover all the area of Iraq north of 36th parallel and south of the 33rd parallel. The purpose of our patrols of the Iraqi no fly zones is entirely humanitarian. They are conducted in support of UN SCR 688, which demanded that Saddam Hussein end the brutal repression of his own people.

  MOD Land (Inglis Barracks)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to put on the market MOD land used by BFPO on its two sites at Inglis Barracks; what arrangements will be made for the role of the land, to take account of the needs of the local community; and if he will make a statement. [88615]

  Dr. Moonie
  Marketing of the site is expected to commence mid 2005.

  The current intention is that the site would be sold with the benefit of a development brief and, or, an outline planning approval which I understand will be the subject of detailed negotiations with the Planning Department of the London Borough of Barnet and where necessary, the Greater London Assembly and Transport for London. These negotiations should address the needs of the local community by taking into account the policies contained within the Borough's Unitary Development Plan.

  Operation Fresco
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) weekly and (b) total cost of Operation Fresco has been, since it began. [89281]

  Mr. Ingram
  Information on the weekly costs of Operation Fresco is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  In the run up to the strike the MOD incurred expenditure of around £8 million associated with the initial purchase of the urgent operational equipment such as protective clothing, breathing apparatus and hydraulic cutting equipment. No other detailed costs are yet available.

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take steps to ensure that British service
  79W
  personnel are not exposed to organophosphate pesticides when on operations in the Middle East. [88056]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: The use of pesticides remains an essential component of force protection against the threat of insect borne disease. It is the policy of the Department only to procure pesticides approved under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 or to seek approval from Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD) of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to store items in United Kingdom, for use in overseas locations. Those pesticides are only supplied to and used by trained personnel, who are fully equipped with the appropriate personal protective equipment.

  QinetiQ
  Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the plans of the Sea Technology Group and their impact in relation to the funding, operation and staffing levels of QinetiQ. [88697]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Sea Technology Group is part of the Defence Procurement Agency which is an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Defence.

  The Group is responsible for providing technical standards, advice and safety regulation for maritime platforms and places a wide a range of contracts with the commercial sector, including QinetiQ, and with other Government agencies to fulfil this role.

  There are no plans to change the role of the Sea Technology Group or its relationships with existing suppliers. Contracts are placed with QinetiQ and other suppliers on the basis of the capabilities they offer and the support requirements of the MOD. We maintain a dialogue with QinetiQ and other suppliers about our forward plans but it is a matter for the company to determine the appropriate funding, operation and staffing levels based on the work it wins or expects to win from the MOD and others.

  Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the recent funding decisions by(a) his Department and (b) the Sea Technology Group which affecting QinetiQ. [88698]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence continues to determine its requirements as a customer for support from industry, including QinetiQ, in the normal way.

  In common with other defence suppliers, it is a matter for QinetiQ to determine the appropriate staffing and resource levels it needs to meet any requirements placed upon it by MOD.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the additional information I have provided today in answer to her question on the relationship between the Sea Technology Group of the Defence Procurement Agency and QinetiQ.

  Royal Navy Vessels
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent IT upgrades have been made to Royal Navy vessels; how this improves capability; and if he will make a statement. [86299]
  80W
  Mr. Ingram
  The Navy Star Programme provides key IS support to RN vessels. A common IT infrastructure is being progressively deployed across the fleet. With the exception of two vessels, the programme will be complete by 2005. The rate of deployment is constrained by the availability of suitable fitting opportunities. All ship's staff have access to the system, which supports a comprehensive range of administrative and operational support applications, as well as standard OA facilities. An e-mail capability provides connectivity to shore users, including families and friends for welfare purposes. The system is refreshed on a cycle of upgrades to sustain and improve capability.

  A significant number of Royal Navy Command Support Systems, used for the planning and execution of maritime and amphibious operations, have been deployed operationally (39 ships and 10 shore units). An incremental rollout programme delivers regular capability enhancements. The most recent of these enhancements has been to upgrade the hardware in 2001 and 2002 to provide the latest commercial off-the-shelf systems, giving better performance and reliability. Software has also recently been improved with the release of Version 7 software. This will give direct benefit to the new Landing Platform Dock (Replacement) amphibious ships and also the aircraft carriers in their role as NATO High Readiness Force (Maritime) Commander.

  In addition to the above, the Ship Command System in the aircraft carriers and TYPE 42 destroyers, including the Landing Platform: Helicopter—HMS Ocean, is undergoing a programme to replace obsolescent display screens. The Endurance and Archer class inshore training vessels have also had electronic planned maintenance systems fitted to improve availability.

  A large proportion of the electrical/electronics systems fitted within RN vessels and their weapons systems use computers or incorporate software or firmware to support their specific functionality. Such equipment is not considered to fall within the heading of `information technology, and accordingly, has not been included in this answer.

  Subcontractors (Prompt Payment)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements are in place to guarantee prompt payments to subcontractors working on Defence Estates projects. [88597]

  Dr. Moonie
  Defence Estates is bound by the statutory requirements of the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 that imposes an obligation on it and its contractors to pay all valid invoices within 30 days.

DEFRA

  Agriculture and Fisheries Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the outcome was of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council held in Brussels on 16–19 December; what the
  81W
  Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [89057]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I represented the United Kingdom at the meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Brussels on 16–20 December 2002. The Scottish Minister for Environment and Rural Development and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland also attended.

  The Council, after lengthy negotiation, reached conclusions by qualified majority on the linked matters of Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) reform, urgent measures to bring about the recovery of cod stocks and the setting of total allowable catches (TACs) and quotas for 2003.

  On CFP reform, the Council's conclusions were embodied in three new regulations, one addressing the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fishing resources and redefining the basic framework of the CFP, one permitting an emergency Community measure for scrapping fishing vessels, and one amending the provisions concerning Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector. Key features, including some points which the UK fought hard to secure, are:
  renewal for a further 10 years of the regime confining access to the 6 to 12 mile zones to fishing vessels which have traditionally fished there;
  renewal of the Shetland Box pending a Commission review during 2003 of all such access restrictions to determine whether their continued application is justified in conservation terms;
  retention of the principle of relative stability for allocating fishing opportunities among member states on the basis of historical fishing patterns, explicitly including the Hague Preference arrangements which can provide additional fishing opportunities to the UK and Ireland when TACs fall below determined trigger levels;
  confirmation, in relation to the access which Spain, Portugal and Finland gain to the North Sea from 1 January 2003 under their Treaties of Accession, that there has been no adjustment to allocations of regulated stocks in favour of these member states, which may fish only for unregulated stocks. There is also a commitment to monitor any consequential impact on regulated stocks;
  commitment to a multi-annual approach to stock management based on recovery plans, involving effort limitation where necessary, for stocks which are outside safe biological limits, and management plans for other stocks. Recovery plans will be developed during 2003 for southern hake, sole in the Western Channel and Bay of Biscay, Rockall haddock, and nephrops in the Cantabrian Sea and off the Iberian peninsula;
  provision to establish Regional Advisory Councils to improve the participation of fishermen and other stakeholders in the process of managing fisheries;
  the ending of public aid for the building of fishing vessels at the end of 2004. In the meantime such aid will be restricted to member states who have met national limits on fleet capacity and to vessels under 400 GT. Entry of vessels to the fleet will have to be balanced by the removal of tonnage without aid, in accordance with an entry/exit ratio. Where a vessel of
  82W
  over 100 gross tonnes built with grant aid enters the fleet, vessels equivalent to 135 per cent. of its tonnage must be removed;
  aid for modernising fishing vessels will be available only for vessels that are at least five-years-old to improve safety, product quality or working conditions, to switch to more selective fishing techniques, or to equip vessels with Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS);
  an increase in the maximum rate of EU scrapping grant was agreed, to help member states achieve the decommissioning of vessels whose fishing effort has to be reduced by 25 per cent. or more under the terms of a recovery plan;
  aid for the permanent transfer of EU vessels to third countries will cease at the end of 2004 and be subjected to conditions in the meantime;
  a range of improvements will be made to the coherence of enforcement and control arrangements and the imposition of sanctions, with the Commission taking a stronger monitoring and co-ordinating role and VMS being extended to vessels over 18 metres from 1 January 2004 and to vessels over 15 metres from 1 January 2005.

  On TACs and quotas, the Council started by examining a Commission proposal whose central element was severe cuts, equating to an 80 per cent. reduction in fishing mortality, in the TACs for the cod stocks for which scientists recommended a fishing moratorium, together with the species (haddock and whiting) most closely associated with them, as well as substantial TAC cuts for other associated species. A solution was negotiated under which higher TACs than proposed by the Commission were adopted alongside an emergency recovery measure for cod based on a much simplified approach which the Commission brought forward in the course of the Council.

  The recovery measure is incorporated as Annex XVII to the Regulation setting TACs and quotas for 2003, and will control effort from 1 February 2003 by limiting days which may be spent at sea by vessels which catch cod in the North Sea, West of Scotland and Skaggerak and Kattegat. Vessels under 10 metres in length are not subject to these controls. Different limitations (expressed as numbers of days absent from port per calendar month) are set according to the type of gear carried. Hence some vessels (eg pelagic trawlers) fall outside the scheme altogether, while nephrops vessels will be allowed 25 days per month. The number of days to be allowed for whitefish demersal trawlers was absolutely critical for the UK, given the unacceptable and devastating effect the Commission's opening suggestion of seven days per calendar month would have had on our industry. The eventual outcome was that we secured a commitment that under the terms of the various conditions attached to the limitations in the EU measure, UK whitefish demersal trawlers would be allowed a total of 15 days absent from port per month.

  The measure allows for some flexibility to move days between months and between vessels. The operational details for these new arrangements will be worked up urgently, in close consultation with the industry. The Council and Commission envisage that, with this emergency measure in place, a more sophisticated regime will be developed for implementation from 1 July 2003, based on proposals to be brought forward by the Commission by 15 February and agreed by the Council by the end of March.
  83W
  On this basis, the Council set TACs and quotas for 2003 which broadly maintain 2002 levels for pelagic stocks and nephrops but significantly reduce TACs for key whitefish species such as cod, haddock, whiting and anglerfish. Reductions of the order of 50 per cent. in the TACs for these latter species in the North Sea and West of Scotland represent a considerable gain in fishing opportunities compared with the Commission's original proposals, whilst significantly enhancing the prospects for the recovery of these stocks in the long term. The closure to sandeel fishing of the area off the north east British coast, as applied for the last three years, is renewed for 2003. For Irish Sea stocks, it was agreed that the 2002 cod recovery arrangements, which include a springtime closure of part of the Irish Sea, should continue for 2003 with reduced TACS for such stocks as cod, haddock and whiting.

  The Council agreed a re-allocation of existing Spanish structural funds to provide financial support to Spanish fishermen and mussel and oyster growers affected by the Prestige oil spill.

  The Council agreed the conclusions of the Commission's action plan for the Mediterranean, which envisages the development of specific management measures for the area.

  The Commissioner also presented a draft regulation on the management of fishing effort in western waters. He explained that he considered this to be necessary to eliminate any legal uncertainty concerning the applicability of some of the measures to the activities of Spanish and Portuguese vessels, following the expiry on 31 December 2002 of the transitional period foreseen in the 1985 Act of Accession. No decisions were reached on this proposal, which will be examined by the Council in coming months.

  The Council reached unanimous political agreement on measures to update food hygiene rules applying to products of animal origin. It also reached political agreement by qualified majority on measures to update EU rules on the use of additives in animal feed.

  The Council also agreed conclusions on animal welfare in third countries and on mutual assistance between member states regarding animal welfare. The Commission reported progress on developing further proposals on the protection of animals in transport.

  The Council was unable to reach agreement on a proposal for new rules governing feedstuffs for organic livestock. Under the relevant Comitology procedures, the Commission will adopt the new measure under its

  Date

  Total animals

  Where consignments were certified

  Animals rejected at certification

  Animals rejected at Dover docks

  Destination

  11 December 2002

  2,197

  England, Scotland and Wales

  14

  1

  France

  14 December 2002

  2,854

  England

  0

  0

  Italy

  The sheep for the consignments listed above were certified within 48 hours prior to export. The consignments that sailed on 11 December were fattening animals and were transported to holdings. The consignments that sailed on 14 December went to
  84W
  own powers in January. The Commission, having reported on the progress of its work to develop an EU level Action Plan for Organic Food and Farming, was remitted to continue its efforts and report further by the end of 2003.

  The Council approved o by qualified majority arrangements to protect the EU market from a surge in low priced cereals from Russia and the Ukraine. The Commission reported agreements reached with the US and Canada to establish reduced tariff quotas for certain cereals and the Council authorised the Commission to implement the deal from the beginning of 2003.

  Over lunch, the Commission presented a paper which it proposes to submit to the WTO in the context of the Doha Round negotiations on agriculture. It proposed a number of specific reductions in tariff levels, export subsidies and domestic support. I welcomed the paper as an important first step in the process now leading up to the Cancun Ministerial meeting in September while warning that our negotiating partners were likely to press for a more ambitious outcome.

  Under other business, Germany reported national action it had taken to reduce levels of acrylamide in food; and Italy raised concerns over the co-existence of GM and conventional agriculture.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many live sheep were exported from Dover to continental Europe on 11 December; when and where health certification was carried out in respect of the sheep; how many of the sheep were rejected as unfit for the intended journey(a) during inspection for health certification purposes and (b) at Dover docks, and to where those sheep were taken; and what the address was of the final destination given on the route plan for each of the consignments; [88569]

  (2) how many live sheep were exported from Dover to continental Europe on 14 December; when and where health certification was carried out in respect of the sheep; how many of the sheep were rejected as unfit for the intended journey (a) during inspection for health certification purposes and (b) at Dover docks; and to where those sheep were taken; and what was the address of the final destination given on the route plan for each of the consignments. [88877]

  Mr. Morley
  The information requested is as follows:

  approved slaughterhouses. The animals which were rejected at certification and at Dover docks remained in Great Britain.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent legislation ensures the protection of the welfare of
  85W
  animals during transport abroad; and what penalties can be imposed against those who break these regulations. [88727]

  Mr. Morley
  The welfare of animals during transport is protected by EU Directive 91/628/EEC, as amended, which is implemented and enforced by each member state within its own jurisdiction. The Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997, as amended, implements the directive in Great Britain and a breach of the Order is punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding £5,000 (or £1,000 per animal if more than 10 animals are involved).

  Bovine TB
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many badgers have been slaughtered as a result of the Krebs' trial to investigate the relationship between badgers and bovine TB. [88970]

  Mr. Morley
  About 5,000 badgers have been culled in the course of the badger culling trial.

  Further information on the number of badgers culled is updated at the end of each culling season. Therefore, information on the number of badgers killed up to and during the 2002–03 season will be made available after the next closed season commences on 1 February.

  Fisheries
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government funding under European Union Public Aid rules will be given to areas of the United Kingdom affected by reductions in UK fishing effort. [87632]

  Agency region

  Number of flood studies conducted

  Number of works carried out

  Number of works under construction

  Number of works to be carried out in the future

  Number that were unjustified

  Anglian

  104

  94

  0

  10

  0

  Midlands

  36

  18

  5

  0

  13

  North East

  21

  14

  2

  3 (2003–04)2(2004–05)

  0

  North West

  9

  3

  3

  3

  0

  Southern

  24

  21

  2

  1 (dependent upon compensatory land acquisition)

  0

  South West

  22

  9

  0

  9 (within the 3 year plan 2003–06)

  2 (2 remain under consideration)

  Thames

  27

  7

  12

  0

  8

  EA Wales

  19

  0

  0

  16

  3

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the Government will provide flood insurance cover for those homes unprotected to the minimum standard of the Association of British Insurers from 2007. [87778]

  Mr. Morley
  The Association of British Insurers have stated that they will review the situation with Government on a regular basis. Insurance matters are for the Treasury, but there appear to be no grounds for Government intervention as insurance for flood risk is available to by far the majority of those properties
  86W
  Mr. Morley
  Funding is already available on a regional level for economic development. The needs of fishing communities will be assessed in the light of the December Agriculture and Fisheries Council.

  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 10 December 2002,official Report, column 193W, on fisheries, if she will calculate the total average number of days at sea multiplied by the total number of kilowatts of engine power for vessels in the under 10 metres sector capturing and landing cod in the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Sea Areas (a) North Sea, (b) Irish Sea, (c) West of Scotland, Waters and (d) Area VIId. [87807]

  Mr. Morley
  Vessels in the under 10 metre sector of the UK fishing fleet are not obliged to submit European Community logbook declarations covering their fishing trips. These submissions are required in order for accurate days at sea information to be available for individual vessels. As such the raw data required to calculate the information requested is not available.

  Flooding
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what flooding studies were conducted by the Environment Agency in 1999; and of these studies, what recommended work(a) has been carried out and (b) remains to be carried out. [86986]

  Mr. Morley
  I understand that the Environment Agency conducted 262 flood defence feasibility studies during the 1999–2000 financial year. 166 works have been completed; 24 are under construction; 44 are to be carried out in the future and 28 were found to be unjustified.

  situated on the floodplain. People must remember that the insurance industry is a competitive one and they may benefit from 'shopping around'

  The nature of the risk in undefended areas means that insurers cannot guarantee to maintain cover, but will examine the risks on a case by case basis, use their best efforts to continue to provide cover and will work with the owners of domestic properties and small businesses which they currently insure to see what action could be taken by the property owner, the Environment Agency and the local authority, which might make the property

  87W
  insurable in some form. This action might include the use of accredited products, flood resilient materials and temporary defences to defend the property.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in which of the areas affected by flooding in autumn 2000 the Government is recommending the removal of buildings on the flood plains. [88997]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra provides grant to local operating authorities for flood defence capital works that meet certain criteria. However responsibility for deciding which projects to promote and their timing rests with the operating authorities.

  The information requested is not readily available from all operating authorities. The Environment Agency advise that they are not aware of any specific proposals, following the autumn 2000 floods, to buy properties in the floodplain and remove them as the solution to flooding.

  However, some flood protection schemes involve property acquisition to allow defences to be built, and in some areas where effective flood alleviation is difficult then the long term solution may be relocation outside the flood risk area as buildings reach the end of their useful life.

  Krebs Trial
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the Krebs' trial is being carried out in 10 triplet sites as originally planned. [88971]

  Mr. Morley
  The Krebs trial is being carried out in 10 triplets as originally planned.

  Late Payments
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the policy is of the Rural Payments Agency in respect of interest payable on late payments; and if she will make a statement. [88900]

  Alun Michael
  Government Departments and agencies of Government Departments are bound by the rules of Government accounting. In accordance with long established Government policy, compensation is not payable for delays in payment due to industrial action. Payment of compensation for delays in payment not due to industrial action are considered on their merits, provided that the payees own conduct has not contributed to the delay.

  In keeping with this policy the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) will be making compensation payments, subject to a de minimus level of £50 per producer, to those producers who have experienced delays beyond the regulatory deadline of 30 June 2002, in receiving their 2001 scheme year bovine balance payments, as a result of failure by either the RPA or the British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS). Details are on the RPA website.

  Milk Quotas
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many milk quota holders there were in the UK in each of the last five years; and how many of those quotas were non-producing. [88147]

  Mr. Morley
  Details of the total number of quota holders for each year 1997–98 to 2001–02, and of those, the presumed number of non-producing quota holders (NPQHs), are contained in the table.

  The 'quota holders' figure for each year in the table is the number of permanent quota holders at the end of the quota year. It is considered that the most representative figures on NPQHs, prior to 1999, are the number of quota holders who have leased out a high proportion of their quota in any given year. The figures given in the last three columns in the table are thus for the number of permanent quota holders who leased out the percentages of their quota shown, and might therefore be assumed to be NPQHs. The corresponding figures for 2002–03 will not be known until after the end of the quota year.

  Quota year

  Quota holders

  100 per cent.

  95 per cent.

  91 per cent.

  1997–98

  37,090

  5,309

  5,783

  5,855

  1998–99

  35,711

  5,663

  6,025

  6,094

  1999–2000

  34,663

  6,181

  6,556

  6,621

  2000–01

  33,106

  5.778

  6,412

  6,529

  2001–02

  31,605

  6,099

  6,792

  6,937

  Pigmeat
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total weight was of pigmeat sales in the United Kingdom in each year from 1972 to 2001. [87295]

  Mr. Morley
  Information on the quantity of pigmeat sold in the United Kingdom is not available. However, information is available on the amount of pigmeat supplies, in the form of pork, and of bacon and ham, in the United Kingdom, and this is given in the table.

  No data is available on the uses to which the supplies of pork and of bacon and ham are subsequently put. These uses may be for retail as meat or for catering or for foodstuffs which require further processing, some of which may subsequently be exported.

  More detailed production and supplies tables may be found on the Defra website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/.

  UK supplies of pork and bacon

  000 tonnes

  Total new supply1 of:

  Pork

  Bacon and ham

  19722

  662

  639

  1973

  687

  565

  1974

  678

  529

  1975

  582

  482

  1976

  586

  476

  1977

  652

  506

  89W

  UK supplies of pork and bacon

  000 tonnes

  Total new supply1 of:

  Pork

  Bacon and ham

  1978

  660

  519

  1979

  715

  517

  1980

  707

  509

  1981

  720

  496

  1982

  731

  477

  1983

  747

  477

  1984

  709

  467

  1985

  712

  468

  1986

  726

  466

  19873

  775

  459

  1988

  796

  457

  1989

  759

  458

  1990

  765

  445

  1991

  772

  441

  19923

  768

  418

  1993

  796

  450

  1994

  798

  451

  1995

  772

  467

  1996

  806

  497

  1997

  817

  471

  1998

  829

  459

  1999

  831

  457

  2000

  790

  468

  2001

  832

  471

  1 New supply: production plus imports less exports.

  2 Average of 1970–1972.

  3 For comparability with other years, the figures have been adjusted from a 53–week to a 52–week basis where appropriate.

  Sources:

  1972–1984: 'A Hundred Years of British Food & Farming: A Statistical Survey', H F Marks.

  1984–2001: Defra

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Child Soldiers
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps are being taken to reduce the numbers of children involved in armed conflict, following the report by the UN Secretary General of 16 December on child soldiers. [88678]

  Clare Short
  The UN Secretary General's report covered many aspects of the problems of children affected by armed conflict, including their direct involvement. The most effective way to reduce the impact of armed conflict on children, their families and communities, is to prevent, reduce and resolve armed conflicts. My Department is working with other Government Departments to intensify UK efforts to resolve conflict. In relation to children affected by armed conflict, my Department is supporting UNICEF through a multi-year capacity-building project to increase its ability to work with all concerned to decrease the impact of armed conflict on children and to support the disarmament, demobilisation and rehabilitation of child soldiers. We have also been supporting the work of the Secretary General's special representative on children and armed conflict. UNICEF's work on establishing national immunisation days (NIDs), mentioned in the report, is also supported by my Department.

  CÔte d'Ivoire
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Cote d'Ivoire; what the Government's policy is on humanitarian aid to Cote d'Ivoire; and if she will make a statement. [88734]

  Clare Short
  Precise information on the extent of humanitarian needs remains incomplete. Large numbers of people, particularly among immigrant communities but also Ivorian citizens and refugees, have been displaced due to the conflict. There are real humanitarian needs and the situation could deteriorate quickly with scope for further conflict. In December, as an initial response to immediate needs, we released 2,000 tents, 30,000 blankets and 200 rolls of plastic sheeting from our emergency relief stockpile to boost UNHCR's regional stockpile in Accra, Ghana; also contributed towards an urgent airlift of UNHCR relief items to Liberia. I have also recently approved a contribution of £1 million towards appeals from agencies working in Cote d'Ivoire. We continue to monitor the humanitarian situation and are working closely with others in the international community to try to bring about a swift and peaceful resolution to the conflict.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made to the Committee for International Investment and Multinational Enterprises to consult with(a) NGOs and (b) others regarding the report of the UN Panel of Experts on the economic causes of conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [88702]

  Clare Short
  The UK, along with other members of the Security Council, has asked for more information on the claims made in the panel's latest report. We have asked specifically for information on the allegations made against UK companies and nationals. We have yet to receive this material. Once we do we will take a view on what further action to pursue, both nationally and through OECD channels.

  Eritrea
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the food aid requirements of Eritrea. [88684]

  Clare Short
  The Eritrean Government, the UN and NGOs estimate that the crop figure for 2002 is just over 50,000 MT, which is about 20 per cent. of an average annual crop.

  The Government's Appeal and the UN Consolidated Appeal, which was released on 19 November 2002, estimates that the drought-affected population is 1.4 million people out of a total population of 3.34 million. An additional 910,000 people are targeted for assistance comprising internally displaced people, returnees, soldiers to be demobilised and vulnerable urban dwellers. The Eritrean Government appealed for 477,000 MT of food aid for 2003, of which 290,000 is for the drought affected population.
  91W

  Iraq
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what development projects her Department has supported in Iraq since the Gulf war in the rehabilitation of the country; and how much was financed for each project; [89122]

  (2) what development projects her Department has supported in Iraq since the Gulf War for the rehabilitation of the country which have focussed on women and children; and how much was financed for each project. [89120]

  Clare Short
  Since 1991, my Department has provided funding solely for humanitarian assistance projects in Iraq. Total bilateral funding has amounted to just over £100 million. Several of the projects funded were specifically focused on women and children, although all the projects to some degree benefited women and children.

  Specific data on each project is not available, except at disproportionate cost. Total annual bilateral programme expenditure for Iraq for each financial year during this period was as follows:

  Programme Expenditure

  £

  1991/92

  34,283,000;

  1992/93

  4,135,000;

  1993/94

  9,115,000;

  1994/95

  7,654,000;

  1995/96

  6,954,000;

  1996/97

  6,282,000;

  1997/98

  3,351,000;

  1998/99

  5,749,000;

  1999/00

  6,585,000;

  2000/01

  9,545,000;

  2001/02

  7,760,000

  Ivory Coast
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department has had with the UNHCR on refugees fleeing the Ivory Coast into Liberia. [87092]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: The UN launched an appeal on 11 November for humanitarian assistance as a result of the conflict in Cote d'lvoire, including for support to Liberian refugees wishing to return home. We are still considering our response to the appeal.

  As an initial response we have provided 2,000 tents, 30,000 blankets and 200 rolls of plastic sheeting from our emergency relief stockpile to boost UNHCR's regional stockpile in Accra, Ghana. We have also contributed towards an urgent airlift of UNHCR relief items to Liberia.

  Malawi
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had on the humanitarian situation in Malawi. [89048]
  92W
  Clare Short
  I remain in regular contact with my officials in Malawi about the humanitarian situation there. A recent UN assessment concluded that 2.2 million people are currently in need of food assistance. This will rise to 3.25 million—a third of the population—between now and March, after which the 2003 harvest will begin. So far, the rains have been good.

  DFID's emergency assistance to help deal with the food situation, now totals £34.5 million. This includes £4 million which I approved just before Christmas to support WHO/UNICEF disease surveillance and control, for supplementary feeding programmes and food distribution to people living in AIDS affected households.

  Mozambique
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what potential there is for the replacement of maize by sorghum as the staple crop of southern Mozambique. [88681]

  Clare Short
  There has been a trend towards reintroduction of sorghum in southern Mozambique to promote resilience to drought. However, the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) recently held a meeting that concluded that sorghum is not an ideal alternative to maize in southern Mozambique.

  Though sorghum resists drought a little bit better than maize, it is not a drought resistant crop, it is very labour intensive, has a long growing period and has high demands on soil fertility and moisture. Maize has also tended to experience steady market prices and an unlimited demand on the market as an export crop for Europe.

  The FAO meeting concluded that the best solution for southern Africa would be to identify patches with the right conditions for either maize or sorghum, and that the success of the introduction of any new crop will depend on the prevailing economic and marketing prospects.

  Palestine
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the total UK aid to the Palestinian Authority was in each year since 1999. [88612]

  Clare Short
  The total UK aid to the Palestinian Authority in each year is:

  £million

  1999–2000

  8

  2000–01

  9

  2001–02

  14.5

  2002–03

  15 (estimated outturn)

  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the recent report by Catherine Bertini on the level of UK development funds allocated to Palestinians. [88613]
  93W
  Clare Short
  Catherine Bertini's report, and the subsequent UN Humanitarian Plan of Action, stimulated a very useful debate in the international community on how best to respond to the growing humanitarian crisis in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. I agreed in October 2002 an additional £5 million DFID contribution to help meet most urgent needs of the Palestinian people. Total projected expenditure for support to Palestinians for this financial year is now £32 million. This comprises £15 million bilaterally and £17 million through UNRWA.

  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what emergency funds are being made available by the UK to assist Palestinians impoverished by Israeli military actions. [88614]

  Clare Short
  We are providing support for a number of emergency programmes, including non-salary budgetary support, trauma counselling, special educational needs and UNRWA's emergency appeals. This year, out of estimated bilateral expenditure of £15 million, we anticipate that about £8 million will be for 'emergency' programmes. In addition, we have contributed £7 million to UNRWA's emergency appeal for 2002.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what contributions her Department has made to assist UNRWA in its work with Palestinians in the Occupied Territories; and if she will make a statement. [88693]

  Clare Short
  UNRWA's needs are urgent, and it is critical to ensure that it receives consistent and predictable levels of support. The UK is UNRWA's second largest bilateral donor. In addition to our funding for UNRWA's regular budget—£42 million over the last three years—we have contributed over £20 million for UNRWA's emergency appeals in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

  Peru
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether her Department selected the agencies to oversee the(a) management and (b) distribution of the recent grant to the Department of Health in Peru. [89413]

  Clare Short
  The management agency for this programme has not yet been selected. A decision on the short-listed agencies will be taken by participating Peruvian institutions and DFID.

  Zambia
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had on the humanitarian situation in Zambia. [89046]

  Clare Short
  The humanitarian crisis in Southern Africa was discussed at the 18 November meeting of the EU Council of Ministers. I have written to my counterparts in OECD countries urging them to give greater support to help relieve the humanitarian crisis in Zambia. The situation in Zambia is extremely serious with about 3 million people in need of assistance. The 94W
  UK has provided over £14 million of assistance in response to the humanitarian crisis in Zambia since September 2001.

  Zimbabwe
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what impact fuel shortages are having on the transportation of food aid in Zimbabwe. [88685]

  Clare Short
  Fuel supplies have been erratic in Zimbabwe for the last three years. The problem is a direct consequence of economic mismanagement. Foreign exchange to pay for fuel is very scarce, yet it is still sold at controlled prices that do not cover costs.

  Larger organisations such as the UN and International NGOs, and other Government missions including DFID, have contracted to purchase fuel direct from importers at world-market rates and pay in foreign currency. The WFP has buffer stocks, some of which are in the rural areas and their feeding programmes are not likely to be seriously disrupted.

  Smaller organisations that rely on the commercial transport industry to distribute their food have been harder hit. However, these too are becoming more adept in covering short-term fuel problems, either through building up a reserve when fuel is available, or pre-positioning food supplies in rural areas. DFID's feeding partner organisations all pre-positioned food in the rural areas for the Christmas and new year period, and food distribution has continued.

  The short-term impact of fuel shortages has therefore been minimal to date.

  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had on the humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe. [89047]

  Clare Short
  The humanitarian crisis in Southern Africa was discussed at the 18 November meeting of the EU Council of Ministers. I have written to my counterparts in OECD countries urging them to give greater support to help relieve the humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe. The situation in Zimbabwe is a disaster. Of the 15.5 million people in need of food in southern Africa, 6.5 million are in Zimbabwe. One in three adults in Zimbabwe are infected with HIV. The UK has provided £38 million of assistance in response to the humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe since September 2001.

PRIME MINISTER

  EU (Institutional Change)
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made on the proposals for EU institutional change pursued in his joint letter with Chancellor SchrÖder of 25 February 2002; and what steps he will take to ensure that these targets of institutional change are reached. [89026]

  The Prime Minister
  The European Council at Seville agreed a number of practical changes that do not require Treaty amendment but do improve the effectiveness and
  95W
  transparency of the Council. These are now in place. They focus on improving the practices of the European Council, reform of the General Affairs Council, delivering more openness when legislating on dossiers subject to co-decision, and rationalising the number of sectoral Council formations from 16 to 9. These changes have already led to more effective preparation of European Council meetings during the Danish Presidency.

  Heads of State and Government at Seville also agreed that the Council should consider further change in parallel with the Convention on the Future of Europe. The European Council at Copenhagen took note of a Presidency paper that set out possible models for Council reform. The Government will also continue to pursue these issues in the Convention.

  EU Enlargement
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Prime Minister what his policy is on the further extension of European Union membership into Eastern Europe and North Africa; and if he will make a statement. [88803]

  The Prime Minister
  The European Union Treaty stipulates that any European State which respects the principles set out in the Treaty may apply to become a member of the Union. In addition, applicants have to meet the Copenhagen criteria, which relate to democracy, the rule of law, respect for human rights and protection of minorities, a functioning market economy with the capacity to withstand competitive pressure in the EU, and the ability to take on the obligations of membership.

  It is too early to say how far the EU might enlarge in the future. The EU has already recognised the countries of the Western Balkans as potential candidates. With UK support, the EU will be considering how it should further develop its relations with the countries to its east. The countries of North Africa are not European States.

  EU Structure
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister to whom his speech of 28 November on the future structure of the European Union was distributed prior to delivery; and whether it has been presented to the Convention on the Future of Europe. [88710]

  The Prime Minister
  My speech was not distributed outside Government prior to delivery. After the speech, the text was passed to interested parties including members of the Convention on the Future of Europe, and as usual it is available on the No. 10 website.

  Turkey (EU Accession)
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the European Council decision to postpone negotiations on Turkey's accession to the EU; and what steps he plans to take to assist Turkey's accession. [89022]

  The Prime Minister
  The Copenhagen European Council marked a step forward in Turkey's accession to the EU. It decided that if the European Council in December 2004, on the basis of a report and a recommendation from the Commission, decides that 96W
  Turkey fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria, the European Union will open accession negotiations with Turkey without delay.

  The new UK Action Plan for Turkey includes a wide range of bilateral reform initiatives, aimed at helping Turkey prepare for EU membership.

  Written Constitution
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent discussions he has had on establishing a written constitution for the UK. [88926]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

TRANSPORT

  Aircraft Security
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve security checks on aircraft users from non-UK based airlines, flying into the UK; and if he will make a statement. [88444]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The UK supports the principle of host state responsibility, whereby each state is responsible for the security of civil aircraft leaving that state. This is enshrined in Annex 17 to the Chicago Convention 1944.

  My Department liaises closely with international fora such as the International Civil Aviation Organisation, European Civil Aviation Conference and the European Union to improve aviation security standards across the world. The UK has contributed to the development of EU regulations which are about to be published, making basic security standards mandatory in the Union. In addition, there is also close liaison with the US Transport Security Administration, the Israeli Security Agency and equivalent bodies of other key international partners on aviation security issues.

  Using the powers of the Aviation Security Act 1982, all non-UK carriers flying into the UK have been required since 11 November to ensure that all flight doors are locked while in UK airspace or on the ground while the engines are in operation, that the flight crew do not leave the flight deck other than for certain specified reasons, and that passengers cannot obtain access to the flight deck while in UK airspace.

  As regards UK carrier operations from overseas airports, my Department issues guidance on the recommended security measures that should be implemented where the threat to those operations dictates. Departmental inspectors have been undertaking a programme of visits to particular locations to assess the security afforded to and carried out by UK carriers and, where appropriate, liaise with the relevant authorities to improve standards. The frequency and coverage of these inspections has been stepped up significantly in recent months.

  My Department will shortly be establishing Regional Aviation Security Advisers in East Africa and the Middle East. Their role will be to advise and assist the relevant authorities to improve aviation security standards in those areas and to assess and influence how

  97W
  flights to the UK are secured. Further appointments are planned for West Africa, South East Asia and the Indian sub-continent later in the year.

  Airport Capacity
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the outside consultancy firms which have been appointed to undertake work in connection with his consultation on airport capacity in the South East, together with(a) the tasks assigned and (b) the value of the contracts awarded in each case; and if he will make a statement. [88280]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The following table lists the organisations that have carried out work on the South East and East of England Regional Air Services (SERAS) Study and have provided advisory support for the Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom (South East) consultation. Their areas of expertise are also indicated. The total cost of their work since the SERAS study began in January 2000 is approximately £5 million. This does not include NOP and Avia Solutions, as their costs cannot be broken down by region.

  Organisation

  Area of expertise

  Civil Aviation Authority

  Noise, airspace

  Halcrow Fox

  SERAS managing consultants, wide range of appraisal work

  Ove Arup & Partners

  Airport optioneering, land use and urbanisation

  AEA Technology

  Air quality

  Scott Wilson

  New airport site search, environmental appraisal

  QinetiQ

  Climate change

  Crown Business Communications

  Event management

  Avia Solutions

  Response analysis

  NOP

  Questionnaire analysis

  NATS

  Air traffic control

  Booz Allen Hamilton

  New south east airport: airline development

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many people have responded to his consultation on the future of airport capacity in the south-east in the form of(a) petitions, (b) letters, (c) questionnaires and (d) detailed submissions; [88493]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the level of response which he has had to his consultation on airport capacity in the south-east. [88494]

  Mr. Jamieson
  By 18 December, for the south-east region, 33 petitions, over 25,000 letters (including a number of detailed submissions from both members of the public and organisations), and 11,000 completed NOP questionnaires in response to the consultation had been received.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced to Parliament on 28 November that the consultation on airports capacity will be kept open until we have consulted on options for new runways in relation to Gatwick. We aim to publish a further consultation document shortly.
  98W

  Broadway-Honeybourne Railway
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to ensure that no developments prejudice the re-opening of the railway line between Broadway and Honeybourne; and if he will make a statement. [88417]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a matter in the first instance for Wychavon district council as the local planning authority. I understand that a planning application has been made by SUSTRANS for a cycle track along a section of the Gloucestershire and Warwickshire railway line which also extends into Cotswold district. This is for the authorities to determine and it would not be appropriate for Ministers to become involved in this local matter.

  As part of the planning application process, details of all developments close to railway lines (whether in use or disused) are referred to the Strategic Rail Authority who will comment as appropriate.

  Certificates of Equivalent Competency
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many certificates of equivalent competency have been issued to foreign seafarers by the UK maritime administration in each year since the scheme was established. [88903]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) has issued the following number of certificates of equivalent competency in each year since the scheme began in 1997:

  Number

  1997

  37

  1998

  257

  1999

  363

  2000

  1,107

  2001

  2,337

  2002

  2,033

  Commercial Aircraft (Terrorism)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of terrorist threats to British commercial aircraft from handheld ground to air missile launchers; and what advice has been issued by his Department. [88521]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Terrorist threats are assessed on a continual basis and appropriate advice issued. The Government do not believe that it is appropriate to disclose advice issued in relation to such matters for obvious reasons.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the British fleet of commercial aviation will be protected by electronic counter measures equipment over and above Goodrich video surveillance apparatus. [88520]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are seeking specialist advice to establish the technical feasibility of fitting electronic counter measures to UK civil aviation fleets.
  99W

  Community Transport Schemes
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representation he has received in respect of amending regulations relating to community transport schemes so as to facilitate their development. [88982]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have had several discussions with the Community Transport Association and the Association of Transport Co-ordinating Officers about the regulations affecting community transport.

  Regulations were brought forward in England, with effect from 1 May 2002, to extend the Bus Service Operators Grant (formerly Fuel Duty Rebate) to a wider range of community transport services. I understand that the National Assembly for Wales has introduced similar provisions with effect from 14 August 2002.

  In addition we have recently consulted on proposals (affecting both England and Wales) to facilitate the registration of flexibly routed bus services, which should increase the scope for community operators (among others) to register such services. We are now analysing the responses.

  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provisions are in force for the exemption of community transport vehicles from vehicle excise duty when(a) they are used exclusively by disabled people and (b) they are used both by disabled and able bodied people. [88983]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The provisions governing the exemption from vehicle excise duty for vehicles used by or on behalf of disabled people are set out in schedule 2 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994. Paragraph 20 of the schedule states that a vehicle used for the carriage of disabled people by a body recognised by the Secretary of State is exempt from vehicle excise duty. In practise this means that the body should be registered with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee.

  However, section 15(2) of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act states that where a vehicle is used in a way which would render it liable to taxation at a higher rate, the higher rate is payable. This means that where a vehicle is used for both disabled and able-bodied people, vehicle excise duty is payable at the normal rate applicable to that vehicle.

  Concorde
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the life expectancy of Concorde is; and if he will make a statement. [88956]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The service life of Concorde is a commercial decision, depending primarily on the rate of utilisation by the operator. The existing fatigue life of the aircraft can be extended by the operator carrying out an appropriate programme of modifications.

  Consultants
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the answer of 9 December 2002,official Report, column 30W, who the specialist
  100W
  consultants in event management were who were commissioned to identify suitable venues to organise the public exhibitions on the airport options; and what their fee was. [87270]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: Crown Business Communications Ltd. were commissioned to organise the public exhibitions as part of the Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom consultation. Their fee for doing this work was £127,752.

  Cycleways
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet representatives of SUSTRANS to discuss protection of the trackbed of disused railway lines for possible re-opening when planning cycleways. [88415]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department has a continuing dialogue with SUSTRANS on transport issues. On this issue it would be more appropriate for representatives of SUSTRANS to meet with the relevant officials of the Strategic Rail Authority.

  Flying (DVT)
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what incentive airlines are offering their passengers to complete questionnaires on behalf of researchers involved in the WHO study into DVT and flying; [88847]

  (2) how many seats on long haul flights airlines are offering free of charge to researchers to undertake clinical experiments on volunteers into the relationship between cabin atmosphere and the incidence of blood clotting as part of the WHO's study into DVT and flying; [88848]

  (3) what help the researchers involved in the World Health Organisation's study into deep vein thrombosis and flying are getting from the airlines to obtain passenger lists of frequent flyers [88850]

  (4) what co-operation researchers involved in the World Health Organisation's study into deep vein thrombosis and flying are receiving from airlines through the IATA medical group; and if he will make a statement [88852]

  (5) what access researchers involved in the World Health Organisation's study into deep vein thrombosis and flying are getting to passengers on board aircraft through the IATA. [88851]
  101W
  Mr. Jamieson
  This is primarily a matter between the airlines and the researchers carrying out the World Health Organisation's study into DVT and flying, but I understand that:(a) although the air travel costs of the researchers carrying out clinical studies have been included in the overall budget for the project, airlines have agreed to provide a number of seats free-of-charge on selected flights;
  (b) airlines, through the IATA Medical Advisory Group, are cooperating in a pilot study of frequent flyers in order to test the methodology for the full-scale epidemiological study;
  (c) for reasons of confidentiality airlines will not supply passenger details, but they have agreed to send out questionnaires to selected passengers and to forward the responses to the researchers;
  (d) the epidemiological studies to be carried out in the first phase of the WHO project do not require access to passengers on board aircraft; and
  (e) in order to maintain the integrity and the neutrality of the research the WHO decided that airlines should not be too closely involved with the study. For this reason they will not provide incentives to passengers.

  Foreign Seafarers
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many foreign seafarers have been employed on UK-registered merchant ships in each of the past five years. [88902]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Employment of seafarers is a matter for shipping companies and the Department does not maintain records of the nationalities of seafarers employed on UK registered ships.

  In the past five years, 6,097 certificates of equivalent competency have been issued to foreign officers, and a further 10,574 have qualified for UK certificates of competency. These officers are eligible to serve on UK ships, although many serve on foreign registered vessels. (Most officers only apply for a certificate of equivalent competency when there is likelihood of employment on a UK ship).

  Some limited information is available from returns of companies entered in tonnage tax, but in most cases, this only covers the last two years and does not cover all UK registered ships.

  Green Ministers
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which Minister in his Department is the nominated Green Minister; how often he has attended meetings of the Green Ministers; and which official has responsibility for the DEFRA rural proofing check-list in his Department. [88459]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I represent the Department for Transport on the Green Ministers' committee ENV(G). It is established practice under exemption two of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet Committees.

  Policy responsibility for rural proofing lies in the Department for Transport with Regional Transport Directorate.
  102W

  Illegal Minicabs
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many illegal minicabs have been stopped this year for(a) having no tax disc and (b) being unroadworthy; and what penalties were imposed; [89250]

  (2) in what form and at what cost his Department, in conjunction with the Home Office, plan to advertise the undesirability of using illegal minicabs (a) this Christmas and New Year period and (b) next year. [89320]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is for local enforcement authorities (district/borough councils, unitary authorities or Transport for London) and the police to publicise the undesirability of using illegal minicabs and to deal with breaches in the law by their drivers. Records are not kept centrally.

  Local Bus Services
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to increase the level of local bus services that are not profitable for bus operators. [88843]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Decisions on subsidy for local bus services that are not provided on a commercial basis are for individual local authorities, taking account of local priorities and the resources available to them in Revenue support grant and, for example, from my Department's rural bus subsidy grant scheme. I am aware there have been a number of commercial services withdrawn recently in Worcestershire and that the county council has taken action to replace a number of these with subsidised services.

  M20
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what decibel level was predicted on the M20, junctions 8 and 9, at the time of the public inquiry prior to the construction of the motorway. [88346]

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

  Letter from Mr. Tim Matthews to Mr. Hugh Robertson, dated 7 January2003:
  I have been asked by the Transport Minister, David Jamieson, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about noise levels on the M20 Motorway between Junctions 8 and 9.
  Regrettably, we no longer have the detailed records that were available at the public inquiry, which was held in 1986. The standard methodology used predicts noise levels based on the predicted volume of traffic together with other local factors.
  The factor not taken into account at that time was the effect of the concrete surface and the significance of this emerged as soon as traffic began to use it. We have tried to prevent the problem occurring elsewhere and mitigation, in the form of noise insulation and financial compensation, was made available to those adversely affected by this section of M20.
  The effects of the concrete surface on the M20 have been investigated along with 16 other roads built with this type of surface since 1988 and the Highways Agency is committed to resurfacing all of these as part of the Government's 10 Year Plan.

  103W
  If you would like further information in relation to noise issues on the M20 Motorway the Area Manager, Mark Kumar, at our Dorking office would be pleased to help you. His telephone number is 01306 878115.

  Marine Surveyors
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many marine surveyors were employed by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in each of the past five years. [88906]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency have employed the following numbers of surveyors over the last 5 years.

  Year

  Number

  1998

  160

  1999

  160

  2000

  149

  2001

  157

  2002

  162

  Open Skies Agreement
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans the UK has to denounce the open skies agreement with the USA in accordance with the recent European Court of Justice judgment. [88928]

  Mr. Spellar
  The UK does not have an 'open skies' agreement with the US. The ECJ judgment does not require the Government to renounce its bilateral air services agreement with the US, and the Government have no intention of doing so.

  Port Developments
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations his Department has received on proposed port developments at(a) Southampton, (b) Shell Haven, (c) Felixstowe and (d) Harwich. [88581]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have received a wide range of representations about these port developments, especially in respect of their potential impact on the environment, and public inquiries have either been held or have been announced in each of the cases.

  Port State Control Inspections
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many port state control inspections were carried out by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in each of the last five years; how many ships were detained; what percentage were found with deficiencies; and how many inspections of UK ships were undertaken in each of these years. [88905]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of inspections carried out by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in each of the last five years is as follows.
  104W

  Port state control inspections of foreign ships

  Year

  Number of inspections

  Number of ships detained

  Percentage of ships with deficiencies

  1997–98

  1,890

  179

  73.0

  1998–99

  1,980

  155

  74.8

  1999–2000

  1,801

  106

  72.2

  2000–01

  1,803

  116

  70.1

  2001–02

  1,765

  118

  68.8

  UK inspections

  Year

  Number

  1997–98

  3,289

  1998–99

  3,668

  1999–2000

  3,616

  2000–01

  4,367

  2001–02

  4,383

  Rail Passengers (Security)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to ensure that there is clear responsibility and accountability for personal security design standards in new rolling stock to protect the public; and if he will make a statement. [88711]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department for Transport and the Strategic Rail Authority are jointly engaged on a project to improve the on-train security of both passengers and train staff. The project will identify good practice for the building, refurbishment and management of railway passenger rolling stock.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research(a) has been carried out in the past five years and (b) is in hand to identify issues connected with passenger personal security and perceptions about their surroundings on the railways; and if he will make a statement. [88713]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department is currently reviewing the personal security perceptions of public transport passengers, and has a joint project underway with the Strategic Rail Authority to improve the on-train environment for rail passengers and staff. We also undertook research three years ago to investigate the issues in developing a secure transport pilot route along the Manchester (Victoria) to Clitheroe rail route. As a result of this research, we are currently sponsoring a secure transport route co-ordinator to help implement the action plan to improve personal security. Analysing the perceptions of rail passengers has also been included in recent research projects to find out the transport needs of women, older people, and people from minority ethnic communities.

  The Secure Stations Scheme is a national accreditation scheme recognising set standards of good practice in rail station, staff and passenger security. An independent survey of passenger perceptions is undertaken as part of the station's application process.
  105W
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to require future editions of the annual report, Railway Safety, to incorporate data and performance measures concerning the personal security of passengers during the year, and the outcomes of action taken. [88714]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) annual report on railway safety does not contain data and performance measures concerning the personal security of passengers. The HSE does not record this information because it is not a legal requirement of the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1995 (RIDDOR).

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will issue guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority that personal security is a key aspect of their responsibilities for safety; and if he will make a statement. [88712]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Directions and Guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority, first issued by the Secretary of State on 11 April, state that the Authority should seek to promote the personal security of passengers travelling by rail. It should promote improved personal security at stations by encouraging accreditation under the Secure Stations Scheme and the Secured Car Park Scheme. It should also work with appropriate bodies to improve personal security on pedestrian routes to stations.

  Road Tax
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evaluation has been undertaken of pilot schemes to allow local authorities to fine and remove vehicles without a valid road tax certificate; and if he will make a statement. [89408]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The London Borough of Newham was the first local authority to take on devolved powers to clamp and impound unlicensed vehicles in partnership with DVLA.

  During the 12 months of the pilot scheme 2,000 vehicles were wheelclamped. Half of these vehicles were released upon payment with the result that these vehicles are now correctly registered.

  Surveys undertaken by Newham council before and at the end of the pilot scheme showed the level of evasion had reduced by 15per cent., the result of additional and visible enforcement in the borough.

  Sandy-Bedford rail link and Bedford-Milton Keynes canal link.
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what estimate he has made of changes to the annual net level of CO2 emissions in the United Kingdom that would result from the operation of(a) the Sandy-Bedford rail link and (b) the Bedford-Milton Keynes canal link; [89405]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the level of (a) lottery grant (b) landfill grant, and (c) other public money that would need to be made available to (i) bring into operation and (ii) maintain each year (a) the Sandy-Bedford rail link and (b) the Bedford-Milton Keynes canal link; [89406]
  106W
  (3) what estimate he has made of (a) the volume of freight that could be carried by and (b) the number of passengers who would use (i) the Sandy-Bedford rail link and (ii) the Bedford-Milton Keynes canal link each year. [89404]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Sandy-Bedford rail link and the Bedford-Milton Keynes canal link are possible schemes that have been considered within the London-South Midlands multi-modal study. The consultants are expected to report next month and will include an assessment of the impact on CO2 levels for the preferred strategy across the study area as a whole. The three regional planning bodies whose areas the study relates to will then consider the recommendations of the study and pass their advice to Ministers. We would expect to announce our decisions on the study recommendations in the spring or summer of this year.

  Speed Cameras
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of the effectiveness of speed cameras in reducing(a) speed and (b) accidents. [88552]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Speed enforcement cameras have proved to be highly effective at reducing speeding and crashes when placed at sites or along routes with a history of speed related crashes. In the first year of the safety camera pilot scheme the number of those killed and seriously injured has been reduced on average by 47 per cent. at camera sites. A full two year report of the cost recovery system for the eight pilot areas in the safety camera scheme will be published shortly, and will be made available in the Library.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of how many speeding motorists have(a) been caught as a result of speed cameras and (b) caused accidents by sudden reduction of speed on approaching speed cameras in the last three years. [88553]

  Mr. Jamieson
  (a) The most recent year for which data are available is 2000. In 2000 733,500 drivers were either prosecuted or fined for speeding as a result of detection by camera in England and Wales. In 1999 and 1998 the numbers were respectively 498,600 and 403,800.

  (b) There is no evidence that accidents are caused by motorists suddenly reducing speed at camera locations.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions have been held with other relevant departments about the(a) guidelines for siting of and (b) design and visual acceptability of speed cameras. [88555]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Guidelines on camera deployment are contained in Circular Roads 1/93 that was subject to the normal consultation process. Where areas net off, additional guidelines and rules are in place. These have been approved by Ministers in consultation with the Safety Camera Project Board consisting of representatives of relevant Government Departments, the police and local authorities.
  107W
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many residents near and adjacent to speed cameras were consulted about the positioning of each camera on average in the last year for which figures are available. [88556]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No information is held centrally about the number of local residents that may have been consulted because there is no requirement to consult local residents on the positioning of speed cameras.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what procedure is in place for consulting residents about siting of speed cameras. [88557]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There is no requirement to consult local residents on the siting of speed cameras. Highway authorities have powers under the Highways Act 1980 section 95 (A) to install and maintain on or near a highway structures and equipment for the detection of traffic offences. This includes speed camera housings and the camera equipment within.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many speed cameras have been erected with authorisation by the Highways Agency. [88558]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This information is not held centrally.

  Speed Cameras (Residential Areas)
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what redress is available to residents whose homes are situated adjacent to speed cameras which they deem visually unacceptable. [88554]

  Consultant

  Project

  Contract value (£)

  AEA Technology

  BR research report provision Study into why operational performance has failed to recover to pre

  Less than 50,000

  AEA Technology

  Hatfield levels

  240,000

  AEA Technology

  ELL Provision of timetable validation study

  Less than 50,000

  AEA Technology

  Project Radar

  Less than 50,000

  Arups

  Market study of coal market

  Less than 50,000

  Arups

  Merseyrail franchise replacement programme

  57,000

  Arups

  Joint working with Railtrack

  55,000

  Arups

  West Coast route modernisation—Rolling stock investigation

  69,000

  Arups

  Infrastructure project work

  71,900

  Arups

  WARM (E) project

  Less than 50,000

  Booz Allen & Hamilton

  Transport Appraisal Services for ELL

  76,000

  Booz Allen & Hamilton

  Demand and economic analysis

  Less than 50,000

  Booz Allen & Hamilton

  West Midlands rail strategy next steps

  80,000

  Booz Allen & Hamilton

  Capacity to utilisation strategy

  50,000

  Booz Allen & Hamilton

  Strategic Plan economic analysis

  Less than 50,000

  Booz Allen & Hamilton

  Due diligence of Railtrack and CLG bus plan

  234,000

  Booz Allen & Hamilton

  ECML Project support services

  Less than 50,000

  Booz Allen & Hamilton

  High Speed Interoperability management

  464,000

  Booz Allen & Hamilton

  ITL 2000 risk manager

  Less than 50,000

  Booz Allen & Hamilton

  Scotrail technical advice

  130,000

  Booz Allen & Hamilton

  ECML Rolling Stock strategy definition

  Less than 50,000

  Booz Allen & Hamilton

  West Coast route modernisation—project

  Less than 50,000

  Booz Allen & Hamilton

  VGR negotiations

  55,000

  Booz Allen & Hamilton

  Baseline 3 analysis

  146,000

  Booz Allen & Hamilton

  Tools for capacity utilisation analysis

  130,000

  Booz Allen & Hamilton

  Virgin trains franchise negotiation

  1,100,000

  Booz Allen & Hamilton

  Development of database for route specification and strategic modelling

  243,000

  Bovis

  Project management services (small works)

  650,000

  Bovis

  Technical advice on Chiltern replacement

  Less than 50,000

  Bovis

  ECML support services

  275,000

  Bovis

  Freight project management

  137,000

  108W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Fixed site speed cameras are structures and equipment for the detection of traffic offences. As such highway authorities have powers under the Highways Act 1980 section 95(a) to install and maintain speed cameras on or near a highway. Any resident concerned about the visual presence of camera installations may make representations to the highway authority concerned.

  STCW 95 Convention
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many seafarers have been detected by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to be in breach of the STCW 95 Convention requirements since February 2002. [88904]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Inspectors from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency recorded 437 breaches of the STCW Convention between 1 February 2002 and 18 December 2002. Some of these breaches are recorded in relation to ships rather than individual seafarers.

  Strategic Rail Authority (Consultants)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the technical and financial consultants employed by the Strategic Rail Authority, the nature of the assignment for each consultant, and the value of each contract. [87627]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The following table relates to contracts over £25,000 that have been awarded by the Strategic Rail Authority since April 2002.
  109W

  Consultant

  Project

  Contract value (£)

  Consolidated communications

  Benchmarking exercise

  56,000

  EC Harris

  Felixstowe—Nuneaton commercial assistance

  Less than 50,000

  EC Harris

  Project baselining 2

  Less than 50,000

  Fluor

  Project baselining RFP

  75,000

  Fluor

  Review of RPI costs and risk management for infrastructure

  75,000

  Jacobs Gibb

  Consultancy Support for Mark 1 rolling stock

  Less than 50,000

  Jacobs Gibb

  Business Case manual

  Less than 50,000

  Jacobs Gibb

  Greater Anglia replacement

  100,000

  Jacobs Gibb

  T2000 LTS preparation and other CLRL tasks

  50,000

  Jacobs Gibb

  Thames Trains franchise extension technical support

  51,000

  Jacobs Gibb

  Joint working with Railtrack

  50,000

  Jacobs Gibb

  Capacity utilisation

  130,000

  Jacobs Gibb

  Mrk 1 strategic reserve vehicles

  Less than 50,000

  Jacobs Gibb

  The impact of crossrail on the national rail network

  128,000

  Jarvis Facilities Ltd.

  Feasibility Study re mauchline remodel

  88,000

  KPMG

  National Express Work

  Less than 50,000

  KPMG

  Virgin Rail Ltd. scope review

  150,000

  KPMG

  Financial advisers for Virgin Rail Group Negotiations

  367,000

  KPMG

  WCML Review implementation, scope and costs

  191,000

  KPMG

  Central trains extension

  180,000

  KPMG

  CSE Financial adviser

  160,000

  KPMG

  West Anglia Route modernisation project

  92,000

  KPMG

  Franchise replacement programme and strategy

  100,000

  KPMG

  Strategic planning process

  84,000

  KPMG

  ISWT replacement project

  200,000

  KPMG

  Project Tide

  50,000

  KPMG

  Financial adviser to Scottish passenger rail franchise relet

  958,000

  KPMG

  Due Diligence—Transpennine express

  130,000

  KPMG

  Northern Franchise accountancy advice

  100,000

  KPMG

  Review of TOC Franchise replacement

  50,000

  KPMG

  East London Line financial modelling services

  55,000

  KPMG

  East London Line Corporate and project finance advice

  60,000

  Lazardsl

  Project Ariel, SPVs and enhancements

  3,000,000

  LEK

  Case for rail freight

  50,000

  LEK

  Policy evaluation of track access grant

  Less than 50,000

  LEK

  Review of freight performance regimes

  60,000

  LEK

  Freight performance

  75,000

  LEK

  Conventional interoperability

  168,000

  LEK

  Financial advisers Northern

  650,000

  MDS Transmodal

  Innovation competition

  Less than 50,000

  Mott McDonald

  Transport Modelling Services for ELL

  125,000

  Mott McDonald

  West Anglia Route modernisation

  70,000

  Mott McDonald

  Cherwell Valley re-signalling project

  Less than 50,000

  Mott McDonald

  Value of Rail studies

  89,000

  Mott McDonald

  Appraisal of PLANET models

  Less than 50,000

  Mott McDonald

  Regeneration impacts of changes in rail services

  Less than 50,000

  Mott McDonald

  Asset management survey desk top study ELL

  220,000

  Mott McDonald

  CSE 2003 budget review

  Less than 50,000

  Mouchel

  Central railway demand forecast review

  200,000

  Mouchel

  Interchange funding

  100,000

  Mouchel

  Central Railway growth and strategic fit

  97,000

  Mouchel

  Interchange funding

  150,000

  NERA

  Due Diligence work for CLG

  373,000

  NERA

  Due Diligence work for CLG (appendix B)

  51,000

  NERA

  Management and remuneration advice

  193,000

  Nichols

  Review of Thames Trains financial information and projections

  85,000

  Nichols

  Mark 1 Rollingstock project support team

  490,000

  Nichols

  Freight project management

  133,000

  Nichols

  TL 2000 Blockade project management

  Less than 50,000

  110W 111W

  Consultant

  Project

  Contract value (£)

  Parsons Brinkerhoff

  ELL value engineering facilitation

  Less than 50,000

  PKF

  Reporting accountant Scottish passenger rail franchise relet

  114,000

  PKF

  Reporting accountant Wales and Borders

  160,000

  PKF

  British Transport Police audit plan

  120,000

  PKF

  SRA audit plan

  78,000

  Pricewaterhousecoopers

  IRT open book audit

  Less than 50,000

  Pricewaterhousecoopers

  Review of financial models in freight grants

  50,000

  Pricewaterhousecoopers

  Project support for TL2000 work

  1,300,000

  Pricewaterhousecoopers

  Thames Trains extension

  129,000

  Pricewaterhousecoopers

  ITL2002 project support

  450,000

  Steer Davies & Gleave

  Review of International rail services

  70,000

  Steer Davies & Gleave

  Modelling and strategic review of rail industry

  75,000

  Steer Davies & Gleave

  Review of international services

  50,000

  Symonds

  Business case review of freight interchange

  Less than 50,000

  UK accreditation service

  Assessment of notified bodies

  130,000

  WS Atkins

  Thames Trains extension

  51,000

  WS Atkins

  Production of regional freight strategies

  Less than 50,000

  WS Atkins

  Newco-Immerys FFG: Port of secondary aggregates scheme

  Less than 50,000

  WS Atkins

  Review FFG application for McAlpine slate waste project

  Less than 50,000

  WS Atkins

  Proposed development of Mossend Eurotunnel

  Less than 50,000

  WS Atkins

  Regional Strategies

  100,000

  WS Atkins

  Mersey docks—Birkenhead

  Less than 50,000

  WS Atkins

  High Speed Line study (Trent Valley upgrade)

  Less than 50,000

  WS Atkins

  ECML (upgrade) Development Business Transport Case

  175,000

  WS Atkins

  Development of business case for Kings Cross expansion

  120,000

  WS Atkins

  ELLEP digital mapping

  67,000

  WSA

  Island line infrastructure

  60,000

  1 Annual equivalent

  Wyre Piddle Link Road
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what central Government funding is available to assist in the construction of the western Wyre Piddle link road. [88414]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The local transport capital expenditure settlement announced on 10 December provides £13.9 million for Worcestershire for 2003–04, including £1 million in respect of the proposed Chadbury-Twyford link road east of the Wyre Piddle bypass. The Wyre Piddle bypass has itself received funding of £5.9 million and is nearing completion. It is for Worcestershire county council as the local highway authority to consider whether the western Wyre Piddle link road is a priority within their local transport plan and for any future transport settlement.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Affordable Housing
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to reform the planning system in such a way as to promote the supply of good quality affordable housing. [88547]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is fundamentally overhauling the planning system to make it more effective overall. Proposals for reform were set out in last July's planning policy 112W
  statement "Sustainable Communities: delivering through planning", and we introduced into Parliament in December the "Planning and Compulsory Purchase" Bill. The office of the Deputy Prime Minister will publish early this year how it intends to achieve a step-change in building successful, thriving communities with affordable homes.

  Boundary Committee
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether ministerial guidance to the Boundary Committee acting under the proposed Regional Assemblies Act will allow for the creation of unitary authorities with a population of less than(a) 100,000 and (b) 50,000. [88969]

  Mr. Leslie
  It will be for the Boundary Committee to decide on the size and number of unitary authorities it recommends in a local government review, having regard to any Guidance issued. The draft of the Guidance, on which the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently consulting, indicates that in the Government's view the Boundary Committee will need to consider the impact of size on the organisational and managerial capacity of an authority in the context of the most appropriate unitary authorities for an area being those best able to deliver quality services and effective community leadership.

  Business Improvement Districts
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what input will be expected from private landlords in the business improvement districts. [87972]
  113W
  Mr. McNulty
  Clause 45 of the Local Government Bill, which was introduced into Parliament on 25 November, allows private landlords to make voluntary Financial contributions to the business improvement district in their local area.

  As we set out in our White Paper Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services "Property Owners have a key role to play in BIDs. But there are significant practical difficulties in extending the levy to property owners, outside the rating system. This would, in effect, be a new tax on property ownership. The Office of the Deputy PrimeMinister therefore intends to build voluntary contributions, already substantial in many existing projects, into the model for BIDs in England. This would be done through the guidance rather than the legislation. This will encourage BID partnershipsto involve property owners from the start so that they can participate in the development and the implementation of BID proposals."

  Fire Dispute
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to the answer of 3 December 2002,official Report, column 702W, if he will place in the Library e-mails containing information given by his officials to the Fire Service Employers since the beginning of 2002 regarding the pay dispute with the Fire Brigades Union. [86500]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is withholding this information under exemption 2 (internal Discussion and Advice) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information on the basis that the release would be prejudicial to ongoing negotiations.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the timetable for the publication of the fire cover review pathfinder document. [88531]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the Hon. Member to the answer given to my Hon. Friend, the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, Lynne Jones, on 7 January 2003,official Report.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects to publish the pathfinder review of the fire service. [89319]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, (Lynn Jones), on 7 January 2003,official Report.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the likely impact of a reduction in fire personnel during night hours on the number of(a) deaths and (b) injuries resulting from fire. [88254]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The final report of the Independent Review of the Fire Service puts forward a series of common sense reforms which will lead to a better service, to a safer service, and to a service which saves more lives. These include the recommendation that the service should move to a system of targeted (or risk based) fire cover, based on a careful, professional assessment of the real risk of incidents in the each local area.
  114W
  Risk based fire cover is not about cutting fire stations or firefighters. Risk based fire cover is about making sure that local fire service resources-fire engines, fire stations and firefighters-are in the right place at the right time to respond to community fire needs.

  The Government will produce a White Paper on the Fire service in the spring in order to fulfil our part of the programme of modernisation. The White Paper will set out in detail the legislative and other changes required to modernise the fire service.

  Pathfinder Report
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council will consider the Pathfinder report. [88244]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Fire Cover Review Task Group agreed the text of its final report at the end of September 2002. The Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council was due to consider the report in the autumn, but no meetings were held because of the on-going pay dispute. The Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council is therefore due to consider the report at a future meeting.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will publish the Pathfinder review of the fire service. [88483]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A copy of the draft Report of the Task Group on the Fire Cover Reviewl—also known as the report of the Pathfinder trials—was placed on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website on 20 December 2002.1URL: www.safety.odpm.gov.uk/fire/fepd/fcr/fcrhome.htm

  Housing (Black and Minority Ethnic People)
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will commission research into the concerns raised in the DTLR (Housing Directorate) Action Plan, addressing the needs of BME people, on the impact of the kinds of properties sold under the right to buy on BME families. [88263]

  Mr. McNulty
  This will be considered for inclusion in next years Office of the Deputy Prime Minister housing research programme.

  Housing (Health and Safety)
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has(a) to license houses in multiple occupation and (b) to introduce a new housing, health and safety system. [88548]

  Mr. McNulty
  As announced in the Queen's Speech, the Government intend to publish a draft Housing Bill this session. The Bill will make clear our commitment to introduce the mandatory licensing of houses in multiple occupation and to replace the existing housing fitness regime with the evidence-based Housing Health and Safety Rating System. Taken together, these measures will target poor property condition and management standards in the parts of the housing market that accommodate some of the most vulnerable in our society.

  Housing Consultants
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what regulations are in place to evaluate(a) the quality of housing need and (b) the house condition assessment provided to councils by consultancies. [87937]

  Mr. McNulty
  Robust information on housing need and stock condition is essential to the effective delivery of local authorities' housing strategic and landlord roles. The quality of this information is addressed in the annual scrutiny of authorities' housing strategies and housing revenue account business plans carried out by Government offices and will also be covered in some of the Housing Inspectorate's best value inspections. Detailed guidance is available to authorities on issues to be considered in commissioning housing need and stock condition surveys and in the use of the data obtained.

  Housing Need
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the level of housing need is in(a) Coventry, (b) the West Midlands and (c) the UK. [87938]

  Mr. Jim McNulty
  Local authorities in England report the numbers of households on their housing register (excluding tenants awaiting a transfer) as at 1 April in their annual housing investment programme returns. The latest reported information, for 2002, is as follows:Coventry City Council 7,104
  West Midlands Government Office Region 95,000
  England 1,093,300
  For information about other parts of the United Kingdom, I refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friends the Members for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs Liddell) and Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr Reid).

  Open Spaces
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps the Government is taking to provide additional funding to local authorities to improve the standard of public open spaces. [86946]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government set out its vision for improving the standard of public open spaces in the report "Living Places: Cleaner, Safer, Greener', published on 31 October. Living Places set out a number of ways in which the Government are already offering support, including financial, to local authorities, as well as other delivery agencies, so that they can better manage and maintain high quality public spaces.

  In addition Living Places also contained a package of measures specifically aimed at urban green spaces. In particular the Government recognises the need for better use of existing support and to attract new resources for urban parks and green spaces. We will be working closely with relevant Government Departments, agencies and the new CABE Space unit to address this issue.
  116W

  Rented Accommodation (Overcrowding)
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to modernise legal standards relating to overcrowding in rented accommodation. [88550]

  Mr. McNulty
  As the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on 16 December 2002,official Report, column 612W, the office of the Deputy Prime Minister is considering whether overcrowding-including in rented accommodation-is best tackled through a more modern set of standards or through the new Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), on which the office hopes to legislate when Parliamentary time allows. Provisions to introduce HHSRS will form part of the Housing Bill which we intend to publish in draft during this session.

  Sheltered Housing
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many extra-care sheltered housing places were available in(a) 1997 and (b) 2001; how many are expected to be available in 2005; and what information he has collated on the waiting times for places in such schemes. [87776]

  Mr. McNulty
  Information on sheltered, or extra care housing was collected for Housing Investment Programme purposes until 2000. The number of very sheltered housing places was 18,041 in 1997 and 20,269 in 2000. Up to date figures will shortly be available from the supply mapping exercise undertaken by local authorities as part of the preparations for supporting people.

  My right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) has announced a target of increasing the levels of extra care provision by 50 per cent. on 1997 levels by 2006. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will work o ensure that the number of places available in 2005 is at least in line with this target.

  No information is collected centrally on waiting times for places in extra care schemes and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Medical Students
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many medical students left their medical courses early in each of the last five years [85460]

  Margaret Hodge
  Information on non-completion rates for higher education students broken down by subject is not held centrally. For full-time first degree students who began their studies in 1999/00, the overall non-completion rate for the UK was estimated by the Higher Education Funding Council for England to be 17 per cent. the second lowest rate in the OECD.
  117W
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the gender balance is in the intake of medical students. [85473]

  Margaret Hodge
  The latest available information is shown in the table.

  Accepted applicants via UCAS to full-time courses in pre-clinical medicine Autumn 2001 entry HE Institutions in the UK

  Numbers

  Percentage

  Men

  2,559

  41

  Women

  3,681

  59

  Total

  6,240

  100

  Academic Staff (Universities)
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many academic staff are employed by UK universities; and how many are of ethnic minority origin. [87012]

  Margaret Hodge
  The latest available data are shown in the table.

  All academic staff1 in UK higher education institutions 2000–01

  Ethnicity

  Number

  White

  111,012

  Black Caribbean

  457

  Black African

  759

  Black other

  264

  Indian

  2.010

  Pakistani

  460

  Bangladeshi

  148

  Chinese

  2,800

  Asian other

  1,405

  Other

  2,666

  Total known ethnicity

  121,981

  Not known

  17,959

  Total all

  139,940

  1 Full-time and part-time staff; covers staff whose primary employment is teaching, research, or teaching/research.

  Source:

  Higher Education Statistics Agency.

  Christmas Expenses
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much will be spent on(a) entertaining, (b) Christmas decorations and (c) other festive activities this Christmas season by his Department and Government agencies answerable to his Department; and of this sum, how much will be spent in Ministers' (i) private offices and (ii) official residences. [88123]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: This information could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Any expenditure incurred is made in accordance with the departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, which is based on the principles set out in Government Accounting.

  Development Plans
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how agreements between the LSC and each college will be reached for the three year development plan; who will advise whether the targets set are realistic for an individual FE college; and what support will be offered to those FE colleges who receive less funding as a result of failing to attain their targets. [86888]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: From September 2003, colleges will agree a three year development plan, including challenging improvement targets, with the LSC. The LSC will agree targets with each college, drawing on benchmarking data and an assessment of individual capacity to improve. The LSC will consult with colleges at the end of January on the structure of the new development plans, and the detail of how targets would be agreed and how performance will be measured. Guidance on the new arrangements will be published in May 2003.

  The LSC will give practical help for colleges to support them in improving their performance and offer financial support where this is needed from the special investment and intervention fund.

  Education Maintenance Allowance
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proposals he has to change the method of calculating entitlement to educational maintenance allowance for students whose parents live apart. [88151]

  Margaret Hodge
  We have gained useful experience through running the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) pilots. In light of this, when the scheme is extended to all areas in England in September 2004, there will be changes to the income assessment. This will no longer take account of the income of a parent who lives apart from the young person. Instead, the assessment will be based on household income and follow the same principles used by the Inland Revenue for calculating entitlement to the new tax credits.

  Educational Attainment Levels
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how the educational attainment of school children in current and former coalfield areas compared with the national average in each year since 1997. [82251]
  119W
  Mr. Miliband
  The information required on the educational attainment of 15–year-old pupils in current and former coalfield areas is given in the table:

  Percentage of 15–year-old pupils attaining 5 or more A*-C grades at GCSE/GNVQ

  2001

  2000

  1999

  1998

  1997

  Coalfields—maintained schools

  41.5

  40.0

  38.9

  36.4

  36.3

  England—maintained schools

  47.9

  47.1

  45.7

  43.8

  42.5

  England—all schools

  50.0

  49.2

  47.9

  46.3

  45.1

  Note:

  The definition of a coalfield area taken from the coalfields task force report, June 1998, is: a ward where 10 per cent. of resident males in employment at the time of the 1981 census of population were engaged in the energy and water sector. In these areas, this sector overwhelmingly comprises coalmining.

  The information required on the educational attainment of seven, 11 and 14–year-old pupils in current and former coalfield areas is currently not available for the period requested. Achievement in coalfields areas for the whole period will be available in the new year as part of the Government-wide neighbourhood statistics project being co-ordinated by the Office for National Statistics. Once available the Department will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Exam Markers
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the cost of recruiting additional exam markers, following the recommendation of Mike Tomlinson's final report into A-levels. [89292]

  Mr. Miliband
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 3 December that up to £6 million would be made available to deliver the 2003 examinations securely, the money to be spent in the main on ensuring that the necessary markers can be recruited. QCA are undertaking detailed costing work with the awarding bodies and further advice is awaited.

  FE Colleges
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether there will be a ceiling to increases in funding for FE colleges that continually exceed their targets; and whether the premium rate of funding increase will be reduced as more FE colleges exceed their targets. [86889]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: We want to see a continuing incentive for colleges to continually improve and we are working with the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) on the detailed proposals for the future funding of further education colleges. The strategy document "Success for All" sets out our intention that excellent colleges, which exceed their targets, enjoy a 3.5 per cent. real terms increase in each of 2004–05 and 2005–06 with no ceiling. This premium rate of increase will not change in those years as the percentage of colleges eligible grows.

  GCSE (Performing Arts)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what advice his Department has received from the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority regarding the introduction of a GCSE in performing arts and related disciplines. [88886]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has been asked by the Department to begin work on the development of additional titles for new GCSEs in vocational subjects. Advice is awaited on the range of possible titles, and timings for implementation.

  Green Ministers
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which Minister in his Department is the nominated Green Minister; how often he has attended meetings of the Green Ministers; and which official has responsibility for the DEFRA rural proofing check-list in his Department. [88452]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I have Ministerial responsibility for Green Issues and represent my Department on the Ministers' committee ENV(g). My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills is not a member of ENV (g).

  Policy responsibility for rural proofing in my Department lies with Strategy and Communications Directorate.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) A-level and (b) non A-level students entered higher education in each year since 1997. [83939]

  Margaret Hodge
  The latest available information is given in the table. Figures for 2002 will be available in January 2003.

  Accepted applicants via UCAS to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses in the UK1

  Year of entry

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Entry qualification:

  2 or more A levels

  183,123

  181.459

  183,852

  185,348

  193,536

  Scottish Highers

  16,641

  16,421

  16,823

  17,106

  17,899

  All other qualifications2

  103,554

  100,340

  102,390

  106,267

  114,037

  Total

  303,318

  298,220

  303,065

  308,718

  325,472

  1— Covers IJK domiciled students.

  2— Including students with GNVQs, BTEC, Access and Foundation courses, degree credits, and a small number with no qualifications.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of higher education students in 1997 completed their courses; and what the proportion was in each subsequent year for which information is available. [86856]

  Margaret Hodge
  Information on the completion rates of HE students is published by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) in "Performance Indicators in HE". The latest available data are shown in the table.
  121W
  Figures published recently showed that the UK has one of the lowest non-completion rates in the OECD.

  Projected Learning Outcomes Full-time Students Starting First Degree Courses in UK HE Institutions

  Projected Outcomes1

  Students starting in

  Obtained degree percentage

  Obtained no qualification percentage

  Other2 percentage

  1996/97

  80

  18

  2

  1997/98

  81

  17

  2

  1998/99

  81

  17

  2

  1999/00

  81

  17

  2

  1 The projected outcomes are calculated on the assumption that the progression paths of new entrants will be the same as those for students currently in the system.

  2 Includes students who obtain undergraduate qualifications other than a degree (e.g an HMD).

  Higher Education Student Profiles
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on participation rates broken down by socio-economic class of parents of higher education students in each year since 1990. [88328]

  Margaret Hodge
  The latest available information is shown in the table. The sharp rise in participation rates in the early 1990s reflects the expansion of the higher education sector during these years. There was an increase in entrant numbers in 1997 related partly to the funding arrangements for higher education, with students choosing to enter HE rather than wait until 1998. There was a corresponding reduction in 1998 before the entry rates started to increase again in 1999.

  The Government are committed to raising the participation rates for people from less affluent family backgrounds, and has introduced Excellence Challenge, including the AimHigher campaign, which is targeted at raising attainment and aspirations among young people who traditionally would not consider going to university.

  Participation1 in Higher Education by Social Class—Great Britain

  Percentages

  Academic year beginning:

  Social class

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  I Professional

  n/a

  55

  71

  73

  78

  80

  II Intermediate IIIN Skilled non

  n/a

  36

  39

  42

  45

  46

  manual IIIM Skilled

  n/a

  22

  27

  29

  31

  31

  manual

  n/a

  11

  15

  17

  18

  18

  IV Partly skilled

  n/a

  10

  14

  16

  17

  17

  V Unskilled

  n/a

  6

  9

  11

  II

  12

  1–IIIN

  37

  35

  40

  43

  46

  47

  IIIM-V

  10

  11

  14

  16

  17

  17

  All classes

  19

  23

  28

  30

  32

  32

  122W

  Academic year beginning

  Social class

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  I Professional

  82

  79

  72

  73

  76

  II Intermediate

  47

  48

  45

  45

  48

  IIIN Skilled non manual

  32

  31

  29

  30

  33

  IIIM Skilled manual

  18

  19

  18

  18

  19

  IV Partly skilled

  17

  18

  17

  17

  19

  V Unskilled

  13

  14

  13

  13

  14

  I-IIIN

  48

  48

  45

  45

  48

  IIIM-V

  18

  18

  17

  17

  18

  All classes

  33

  33

  31

  32

  33

  n/a = not available

  I Measured by the Age Participation Index (API), which is defined as the number of UK domiciled under 21 initial entrants to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses expressed as a proportion of the averaged 18–19 year old population.

  Innovation
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what applications have been made for exemptions related to innovation under the Education Act 2002; and in each case(a) when the application was made, (b) what decision has been reached and (c) what his grounds were for that decision. [87831]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: The Department has received one application under section 2 of the Education Act (the 'power to innovate'). Langley Junior School applied on 7 November 2002 to gain exemption from the Changing of School Session Times Regulations 1999. The application has been approved because it will enable the school to create time for a curriculum enrichment session for pupils, and planning, preparation and assessment time for teachers. The Power to Innovate was needed to enable the school to implement the changes sooner than the start of the new school year (as required by regulations). We are expecting to receive many more inquiries and applications as this new power becomes known.

  Language Teaching
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what range of languages are included within the Government's plans to make foreign language learning standard in primary education. [88998]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The entitlement for all pupils to study languages at Key Stage 2 must include one of the working languages of the European Union. It will be for schools to decide which European Union language is chosen. Over and above that, it is for schools to decide which and how many languages they choose to offer. Schools may decide for example to offer one main language, or one or two main languages and additional 'taster' sessions in other languages. In addition, by drawing in foreign language speakers, such as parents, those in the community and in business, schools will be in a position to offer and promote a much wider range of languages than has been possible before.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what additional IT resources he will provide to assist primary schools in the development of language teaching at key stage 2. [89331]
  123W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  A total of £710 million has been made available to schools in England through the ICT in Schools Standards Fund over the 2002–04 financial years. This funding is targeted to improve schools' ICT infrastructure and connectivity. It is for individual LEAs to decide how the funding is distributed to schools in line with their ICT development plans.

  An additional £30 million has been distributed to schools in September 2002 in the form of eLearning Credits (eLCs) for the sole use of buying certified curriculum online digital learning products. A further £20 million will be distributed in April 2003.

  We will continue to work with public and private sector providers to increase provision, raise the quality and widen the range of online teaching and learning materials. The new curriculum online service will facilitate teacher access to high quality electronic materials across the curriculum and will stimulate the development of materials for languages as well as for other subjects. There are also many online and offline ICT resources already available for teachers, including the British Educational SoftwareDatabase and the National Grid for Learning website. The Department is currently considering other ways of using ICT to support the teaching and learning of Modern Foreign Languages at Key Stage 2.

  Learning and Skills Council
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the common funding approach to be adopted by the Learning and Skills Council for 2003–04 and subsequent years. [87032]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) is establishing a common funding approach for 2003–04 for further education, work-based learning, and school sixth forms. This replaces the previous separate funding arrangements for these three sectors. Adult and community learning will be brought progressively into the common funding approach as far as appropriate.

  The main principle of the common funding approach is that funding must follow the learner. It is built on the best elements of the former Further Education Funding Council's national system of formula based funding. The key elements of this system include funding elements for the basic costs for delivering all programmes, the extra costs for specialist programmes, learner achievement, extra support for disadvantaged learners, and higher costs for delivering provision in London and related areas.

  The LSC National Council has set up a Funding Group to consider future development of the common funding approach, including simplification of funding arrangements in response to the recommendations of the Bureaucracy Task Force. The LSC will take account of the "Success for All" strategy document and the forthcoming Government statements on 14–19 learning and on the Review of Funding of Adult Learning. We will ensure that the outcome and implications are clear for school sixth forms, colleges and other providers of further education and training.

  Public Schools
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to review the charitable status given to public schools; and if he will make a statement. [88272]

  Beverley Hughes
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Cabinet Office report, "Private Action, Public Benefit", was published on 25 September 2002. Its 61 recommendations set out a package of measures which aim to modernise charity law and enable a wide range of organisations to be more effective and innovative.

  The report recommends that in future all charities should have to demonstrate public benefit. Part of the report considers what happens now with those charities that charge fees which serve to exclude large sections of the population in terms of their having to make provision for wider access for those who would be excluded because of the fees. The report cites the example of independent schools.

  At present there is no systematic programme in place to check the public character of charities. The report recommends that an on-going review programme run by the Charity Commission should check the public character of such organisations. It is proposed that the commission would identify charities likely to charge high fees (such as independent schools) and undertake a rolling programme to check that provision was made for wider access. This programme will be designed to minimise red tape and will not focus on any particular sector. Short returns will be issued which ask charities what they do in terms of widening access, such as making provision for sharing facilities. It is envisaged that for the majority of cases no further inquiry will be necessary beyond the initial return.

  It is proposed that the Charity Commission, in consultation with charities likely to be affected and their umbrella bodies, would issue guidelines as to the level of access appropriate in particular circumstances.

  Of course at the moment these are only proposals. The report was out for consultation until 31 December 2002, and we shall consider the responses to this, and all the other matters addressed in the report, very carefully.

  School Admissions
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the responses received to the consultation on Revised School Admissions and Admission Appeals Codes of Practice and Accompanying Regulations. [89369]

  Mr. Miliband
  We received 187 written responses to the consultation, detailed in the following list. We also received verbal responses from four meetings with LEA officers, headteachers and others—some 400 people attended.
  125W

  LEAs (94)

  Barking and Dagenham Barnet

  Barnsley

  Bath and North East Somerset Bedfordshire

  Birmingham

  Blackpool Bournemouth

  Bracknell Forest

  Bradford Brent

  Brighton and Hove

  Bromley Buckinghamshire

  Calderdale Cambridgeshire

  Camden Cheshire Cornwall Croydon Cumbria Derbyshire Devon

  Doncaster Dorset

  Durham Ealing

  East Riding of Yorkshire East Sussex

  Enfield Essex

  Greenwich

  Hampshire

  Harrow Hartlepool Hounslow Isle of Wight

  Islington

  Kensington and Chelsea Kent

  Kingston upon Thames Leeds

  Leicestershire

  Lewisham Liverpool Luton

  Medway Merton Middlesbrough

  Milton Keynes

  Newcastle upon Tyne Newham

  Norfolk

  North East Lincolnshire North Somerset

  North Yorkshire Nottinghamshire

  Oxfordshire

  Peterborough

  126W

  Poole

  Portsmouth

  Redbridge

  Richmond upon Thames

  Rochdale

  Sandwell

  Sheffield

  Shropshire

  Slough

  Somerset

  South Gloucestershire

  Southampton Southend-on-Sea Southwark

  Staffordshire Stockport

  Stoke-on-Trent Suffolk

  Sunderland

  Surrey

  Tameside

  Torbay

  Tower Hamlets Trafford

  Wakefield

  Waltham Forest Wandsworth Warwickshire West Berkshire Westminster West Sussex

  Wirral

  Wiltshire

  Wokingham Wolverhampton

  Churches, Diocese and other belief organisations Catholic Education Service

  Church of England Board of Education

  Agency for Jewish Education/United Synagogue The Methodist Church

  Diocese of Blackburn

  London Diocesan Board for Schools

  Board of Education of Norwich Diocese Portsmouth Diocese Board of Education

  St. Albans Diocese

  The Dioceses of Southwark

  Archdioceses of Westminster Education Service Winchester Diocesan Board of Education British Humanist Association

  National Secular Society

  127W

  Key organisations

  Advisory Centre for Education (ACE)

  Association of London Chief Education Officers (ALCEO)/London Inter-Authority Admissions Group (LIAAG) Audit Commission

  Campaign For State Education (CASE)

  Consortium of Selective Schools in Essex

  Council of Tribunals

  Education Network (TEN)

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  Foundation and Aided Schools Association (FASNA) Information for School and College Governors (ISCG) Local Government Association (LGA)

  Local Government Ombudsman

  London School of Economics

  National Children's Bureau

  National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations (NCPTA)

  National Union of Teachers (NUT)

  Save the Children

  Secondary Heads Association (SHA)

  Others

  Office of the Children's Rights

  Five e-mails from parents

  Schools (51)

  Beaverwood School for Girls

  Beechen Cliff School

  Bennett Memorial Diocesan School

  Bishop Stopford's School

  Bullerswood School

  Bushey Meads School

  Canon Slade School

  Carr Hill 11–18 High School

  Casterton Community College

  Chelmsford County High School for Girls

  Coloma Convent Girls School

  The Folkestone School for Girls

  Grays Convent School

  Hasmonean Primary School

  Hasmonean High School

  Hertsmere Jewish Primary

  Independent Jewish Day School

  Kemnal Technology College

  King Edward VI Grammar School

  Lady Margaret School

  Latimer High School

  London Oratory School

  Langley Park School for Girls

  Menorah Primary School

  Michael Sobell Sinai School

  Minchinhampton School

  128W

  Montagu School

  Moriah Jewish Day School

  Northolt High School

  North West Jewish Day School

  Nottingham Emmanuel School

  Parkstone Grammar School

  Parmiter's School

  The Priory LSST

  St. Andrew's CE Primary, Enfield

  St. Bernard's High School, Essex

  St. Francis Xavier School

  St. Ignatius College

  St. James's CE Secondary School, Bolton

  St. James the Great VA Primary and Nursery School

  St. Peter's School, Bournemouth

  St. Peter's School, Walsall

  Sacred Heart School,

  Camberwell Sandiwig Primary

  Southend High School for Boys

  Watford Grammar School for Girls

  Westcliff High School for Boys

  Wolfson Hillel Primary School

  Plus e-mailed responses from three unnamed schools.

  School Budgets (Unspent Balances)
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what unspent school balances were clawed back using the funding formula set out by Mr.S.Bishop in his letter to chief education officers of local education authorities in England dated 23 October. [89336]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department wrote to Local Education Authorities on 10 December 2002 confirming that local education authorities would be able to use the system of controls on school balances proposed in the 23 October letter. However, they can do so only from April 2004.

  School discipline
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research he has commissioned into disciplinary problems in schools, related to juvenile drug abuse. [88654]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department for Education and Skills has not commissioned research specifically focusing on disciplinary problems in schools related to juvenile drug abuse.

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate his Department has made of the additional cost if the number of specialist schools rose to(a) 50 per cent., (b) 75 per cent. and (c) 100 per cent. of all maintained schools. [87197]
  129W
  Mr. Miliband
  The 2002–03 estimated cost of the programme will be £154.4 million. The full year revenue cost of the programme with the different levels of coverage of maintained secondary schools would be(a) £213.2 million (b) £320.2 million and (c) £427.2 million. Capital costs to take coverage to these levels would be (a) £61.8 million (b) £141.5 million and (c) £221.2 million.

  In November 2002 the Government lifted the cap on national funding to support the expansion of the programme. However, progress to specialist status continues to be dependent on meeting the required standard.

  De-designated specialist schools

  School

  LEA

  Specialism

  Operational From (September)

  To

  Aldersley High School

  Wolverhampton

  Technology

  2000

  31 August 19971

  Archbishop Michael Ramsey

  Southwark, LB of

  Technology

  2001

  31 July 19991

  Ashcroft High School

  Luton

  Technology

  1996

  1 September 2002

  Baines School

  Lancashire

  Technology

  1994

  31 August 2000

  Banbury School Technology College

  Oxfordshire

  Technology

  1995

  31 August 2001

  Bethnal Green High School

  Tower Hamlets

  Technology

  1996

  1 September 2002

  Chalfonts Community College (The)

  Buckinghamshire

  Technology

  2002

  31 August 19981

  Cowes High School

  Isle of Wight

  Technology

  1995

  31 August 2001

  Culcheth High School

  Warrington

  Technology

  1995

  31 December 1997

  de Stafford College

  Surrey

  Technology

  1995

  31 August 1998

  Fallibroome High School

  Cheshire

  Technology

  1995

  31 December 1997

  Kings School Grantham

  Lincolnshire

  Technology

  1994

  31 August 2000

  Knowles Hill School

  Devon

  Technology

  2000

  31 August 19981

  Latymer School (The)

  Enfield

  Technology

  1995

  31 August 1998

  Lea Manor High School

  Luton

  Language

  1996

  31 August 1999

  Mansfield High School

  Lancashire

  Technology

  1997

  31 August 1998

  Maricourt High School

  Sefton

  Technology

  1996

  1 September 2002

  Merrill College

  Derby, City of

  Technology

  1995

  31 August 1998

  Oakmead School

  Bournemouth

  Technology

  2001

  31 August 19991

  Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School

  Derbyshire

  Technology

  1997

  31 August 2000

  Rastrick High School

  Calderdale

  Technology

  1994

  31 August 2000

  Reading School

  Reading

  Technology

  1995

  31 August 1998

  Sawston Village College

  Cambridgeshire

  Technology

  1999

  31 August 19981

  Senacre Technology College

  Kent

  Technology

  1994

  31 August 1997

  Sidney Stringer School

  Coventry

  Technology

  1995

  31 August 2001

  St Francis Xavier College

  Liverpool

  Technology

  1996

  31 August 1999

  St James C of E School

  Bolton

  Technology

  1995

  31 August 1998

  St Peter's High School and Technology College

  Essex

  Technology

  1995

  31 August 2001

  St Thomas More Catholic College

  Stoke on Trent

  Technology

  1995

  31 August 1998

  Tring School

  Hertfordshire

  Technology

  1995

  31 August 1998

  Westlands High School

  Cheshire

  Technology

  1997

  31August 2000

  Westwood St Thomas School

  Wiltshire

  Technology

  1997

  31 August 2000

  Woolston High School

  Warrington

  Technology

  1996

  31 August 1999

  1 These schools have subsequently been successful in applications to re-join the programme.

  Note:

  Reasons for de-designation:

  All of the schools listed above, with the exception of Mansfield High School, were de-designated because they did not meet the criteria in respect of the progress expected of specialist schools against the designation criteria, and/or they did not prepare new plans that met the required standard. Mansfield High School was de-designated because of financial irregularities.

  Standards Fund
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the elements of the standards fund for each of the next two years showing budgeted expenditure under each head for each year. [87199]
  130W
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the specialist schools which have lost specialist status, with the date of the decision in each case and the reason for it. [87198]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  Applicant schools seeking re-designation in their specialism are assessed against published criteria. Those applicants which do not meet the criteria in respect of the progress expected of specialist schools against the designation criteria, and/or prepare new plans that do not meet the required standard, are unsuccessful in their applications and are not re-designated.

  Mr. Miliband
  Details of education funding for the next three years, including the Standards Fund, were announced in the Secretary of State's statement to the House on 9 December and have been placed in the Library.
  131W

  £ million

  The Standards Fund

  Total budget

  2003–04

  2004–05

  Leadership Incentive Grant

  175

  175

  Targeted Improvement Grant

  34

  34

  Special Educational Needs

  41

  0

  Cease to be paid from 2004–05

  Drugs, Alcohol and Tobacco Education and Prevention

  12

  0

  Cease to be paid from 2004–05

  Study Support

  27

  0

  Cease to be paid from 2004–05

  Study Support (Excellence in Cities)

  19

  21

  Child Protection Co-ordinators

  1

  1

  Vulnerable Children

  42

  42

  National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies

  109

  79

  Key Stage 3 National Strategy

  104

  71

  Key Stage 3 National Strategy: Behaviour

  20

  20

  Ethnic Minority Achievement

  78

  78

  Education Health Partnerships

  6

  6

  Music Services

  60

  60

  Playing for Success

  3

  3

  Early Excellence Centres

  10

  n/a

  This grant will be paid outside the SF from 2004–06

  Behaviour (Excellence in Cities)

  60

  70

  School Achievement Award Scheme

  60

  Funding from 2004–05 will be determined by the outcome of the evaluation of scheme

  Excellence in Cities and Excellence Clusters

  287

  330

  Summer Schools for Gifted and Talented Children

  4

  4

  Specialist Schools: Revenue

  193

  273

  Demand led

  Beacon Schools

  —

  —

  To be determined

  Diversity Pathfinders

  2

  2

  Demand led

  Extended Schools

  5

  14

  Federations

  —

  —

  To be determined

  Advanced Schools

  —

  —

  To be determined

  Golden Hello Payments

  29

  0

  Demand led

  Training Schools

  8

  11

  Demand led

  Advanced Skills Teachers

  33

  0

  Cease to be paid from 2004–05

  School Support Staff

  134

  0

  Cease to be paid from 2004–05

  School Support Staff: Training and Development

  37

  65

  Teacher Sabbaticals

  10

  0

  Cease to be paid from 2004–05

  Early Professional Development

  10

  58

  Fast track

  —

  —

  To be determined

  Fresh Start and New Partnerships

  —

  —

  To be determined

  Information Communications Technology in Schools

  178

  —

  2004–05 to be determined

  Targets
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his response was to recent representations on targets connected with(a) the implementation of asset management plans by local educational authorities and (b) the rewording of substantial school repair projects. [88326]

  Mr. Miliband
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has sent no response to representations on these targets. In recent weeks, officials have had meetings with representatives of the Construction Products Association to give details of the capital strategy and the role of the DIES in providing support for capital investment in their buildings by schools and LEAs. The Department is currently considering how best to collect information on the delivery of improved school buildings without imposing undue bureaucratic burdens locally or centrally.

  Temporary Workers Legislation
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what costs he estimates will fall on(a) local education authorities and (b) other public education providers resulting from recent European legislation on temporary workers. [88327]
  132W
  Mr. Miliband
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has arranged for Regulatory Impact Assessments to be placed in the Library concerning: the recent Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of less favourable treatment) Regulations, which came into force on 1 October; and the European Commission's proposed Directive on the Working Conditions of Temporary Agency Workers.

  University Funding
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the criteria which he will use to allocate planned extra resources for student places to particular(a) universities and (b) courses, with special reference to the academic excellence of particular institutions. [88230]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) determine the extra allocations for individual institutions through an annual bidding exercise for additional student numbers. The criteria for the allocation of these places for 2003–04 are set out in the HEFCE publication, "Additional Student Places and Funds 2003–04", report number 2002/39. The strategy document on higher education, which will be published in January 2003, will set out our vision for the future funding of higher education.

  University Places
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students from Leeds West obtained places at a university in(a) 2002 and (b) 1997; and what percentage of those who had sat A levels went on to university. [81487]

  Margaret Hodge
  Figures for the number of students who enter higher education are not collated centrally by constituency.

  The available figures for Great Britain, showing the proportion of under 21-year-olds who enter higher education for the first time, are given in the table. There was an increase in the index in 1997–98 related partly to changes in the funding arrangements for higher education, with students choosing to enter HE rather than wait until 1998–99. There was a corresponding reduction in 1998–99 before the entry rates started to increase again in 1999–2000. Between 1997–98 and 2000–01, total HE students in English universities and colleges rose by 83,000. Nationally, around nine out of 10 18-year-olds who obtain two or more A levels enter HE by the time they are 21.

  Age participation index (API) 1 for Great Britain

  Year

  Percentage

  1997–98

  33

  1998–99

  31

  1999–2000

  32

  2000–01

  33

  2001–02

  233–35

  2002–03

  233–35

  1 The API is defined as the number of GB domiciled initial entrants to full-time and sandwich undergraduate HE aged under 21, expressed as a percentage of the average number of 18 and 19-year-olds in the population.

  2 Projected: final data on initial entrants not yet available.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Angola
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the lifting of sanctions against the UNITA group in Angola. [88080]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer the hon. Member to the written ministerial Statement I made on 17 December 2002,official Report, column 43WS.

  Christmas Expenses
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much will be spent on(a) entertaining, (b) Christmas decorations and (c) other festive activities this Christmas season by his Department and government agencies answerable to his Department; and of this sum how much will be spent in ministers' (i) private offices and (ii) official residences. [88125]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: The answer to the first part of this question could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Any
  134W
  expenditure in these categories is strictly for official purposes only, and is made in accordance with the departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in Government Accounting.

  The total spent on entertainment, Christmas decorations and other festive activities for the FCO ministerial private offices and official residence at Christmas 2002 was £13,337.15. Of this £11,809.65 was spent on entertaining by ministerial offices and £1,527.50 in the official residence.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will specify the adjustments to the UN plan for Cyprus which were ratified to the parties on 10th December; if he will place a copy of the UN plan as adjusted in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [87496]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: The United Nations' Secretary General has asked that the full details of the United Nations' negotiating process for a settlement in Cyprus remain confidential. It is for the UN Secretary General to decide on this plan's publication. I regret that it is therefore not possible to put a copy, as requested, in the Library.

  The broad thrust of the Secretary General's revised 10 December proposal was to make improvements for both sides in the areas of greatest concern to them.

  The United Nations held intensive consultations with the two sides in Cyprus and also in Copenhagen on 12 and 13 December 2002. It did not prove possible, however, to achieve a comprehensive settlement. However, the parties' positions have never been closer and agreement seemed possible up until the last minute.

  The UN Security Council heard a report from Mr Alvaro de Soto on 18 December and the President of the Council issued the following press statement:
  "On 18 December the members of the Security Council, in the presence of the Secretary General, heard a report from the Special Adviser to the Secretary General on Cyprus on the negotiations that have taken place in recent months, in pursuance of the mission entrusted to the Secretary General by the Security Council in its resolution 1250, aimed at achieving agreement on a comprehensive settlement to the Cyprus problem which takes full account of relevant Security Council resolutions. The members of the Council commended the Secretary General for the initiatives he had taken in November and December 2002 to bridge the gaps between the two sides and to enable them to reach an agreement. They expressed the view that the proposal put forward on 11 November as revised on 10 December offered an unique opportunity to reach a settlement in the coming weeks. They regretted that the Turkish Cypriot leadership had not responded in a timely way to the initiatives of the Secretary General; and they called for its constructive efforts to reach a settlement in conformity with the timetable proposed by the Secretary General. They welcomed the willingness of both sides to continue the negotiations in the period ahead. They underlined the importance of intensifying the negotiations so that full agreement could be reached before 28 February 2003, in conformity with the timetable proposed by the Secretary General in his proposals. They urged both sides to work on the basis of the Secretary General's revised proposals of 10 December. The members of the Council drew attention to the unique opportunity that existed for the settlement of this long-running problem; and to the benefits for all concerned

  135W
  from so doing, so that all Cypriots can benefit from Cyprus's accession to the European Union. They urged all concerned to seize the historic opportunity to bring a peaceful, just and lasting settlement to the Cyprus problem to the benefit of all its people and the wider region. The members of the Council expressed their full support for the continuation of the Secretary General's mission of good offices and his efforts to bring about a settlement in the first two months of 2003."

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the Final Report of the UN Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [87049]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK fully supports the work of the UN Panel and welcomes its latest report. This highlights the activities of "criminal elites" operating throughout the region to exploit the DRC's natural resources. We hope the information in the report can be used to call those involved to account, although more information will be required to substantiate many of the claims made.

  The Panel's mandate expired on 18 October. We are still in discussion with the UN about the allegations. The Security Council is considering the extension of the panel's mandate to allow discussions to continue.

  Draft EU Constitution
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the clause in the EU draft constitution produced by the Convention on the Future of Europe requiring member states to do everything to further the aims of the EU. [88062]

  Mr. MacShane
  The draft Constitutional Treaty of the Praesidium of the Convention on the Future of Europe is an outline for discussion by the Convention. It has a clause which 'sets out the obligation of loyal co-operation of Member States vis-a-vis the Union'. The principle exists in the present Treaties (Article 10 of the Treaty on European Community and Article 11(2) the Treaty on European Union).

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the current draft of the European Constitution produced by the Convention on the Future of Europe contains a clause requiring a member state to join the euro. [88063]

  Mr. MacShane
  The draft Constitutional Treaty of the Praesidium of the Convention on the Future of Europe does not contain a clause requiring Member States to join the Euro. The UK would not agree to a constitution that would compel us to join the Euro. The Government would only recommend membership of the Euro if it is in the national economic interest and the economic case is clear and unambiguous.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish(a) the latest draft EU constitution produced by the Convention on the Future of Europe and (b) the UK response. [88064]
  136W
  Mr. MacShane
  The Praesidium of the Convention on the Future of Europe's draft Constitutional Treaty is publicly available. It can be accessed through their website at http://european-convention.eu.int/. It is a basis for further discussion by the Convention.

  EU Borders (Immigration)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions took place at the Copenhagen summit regarding the securing of EU borders to illegal immigration. [88861]

  Mr. MacShane
  There were no specific discussions of illegal immigration at the Copenhagen European Council. The European Council in Seville in June 2002 focussed on ways to tackle illegal immigration and asylum, agreeing specific tasks and a timetable for implementing them. Good progress has been made on implementing these objectives. The Greek Presidency has identified combating illegal immigration as one of its priorities. Heads of State and Governments will assess progress in implementing the Seville Conclusions at the European Council in June 2003.

  European Union Enlargement
  Mr. Ian Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether money and resources will be provided by the British Government for campaigning in referenda to be held in the various states proposing to join the European Union in 2004; and if he will make a statement. [88481]

  Mr. MacShane
  Given the decisions made at the Copenhagen Summit, the Government hopes that where there are referendums, EU membership will be supported; and in deepening and developing relations with the ten states prior to their planned accession on 1 May 2004, the Government will continue to set out the benefits of membership.

  The decision to join the EU rests with the citizens of the accession states themselves and the government has no plans to give direct financial support to campaigning groups within the 10 EU accession states

  Green Ministers
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Minister in his Department is nominated Green Minister; how often he has attended meetings of the Green Ministers; and which official has responsibility for the DEFRA rural proofing check-list in his Department. [88461]

  Mr. Rammell
  I am the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Green Minister.

  Information such as ministerial attendance at committees is covered by Exemption 2 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose information relating to the proceedings of the Cabinet and its committees.

  The DEFRA rural proofing check-list does not currently apply to the FCO.

  India
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Hawk components or production equipment exported to India under the open licence issued on 6 September 2001 have subsequently been re-exported; and what the(a) location of and (b) end-use were to which Hawk components or production equipment exported to India under the licence were put. [87613]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: The company has informed us that no Hawk components or production equipment have been exported to India under the open individual export licence issued by the Department for Trade and Industry on 6 September 2001.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Statutory Instruments subject to negative procedure made by his Department(a) came into force and (b) were considered by a delegated legislation committee in each of the last three sessions. [88027]

  Mr. Straw
  The Statutory Instruments subject to negative procedure that were made by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in each of the last three sessions, are in the following list. All came into force and were considered by a designated legislation committee.

  1999/666 The Hong Kong (Overseas Public Servants) (Pension Supplements) (Amendment) Order 1999
  1999/1437 The Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Act 1999 (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1999
  2000/2147 The Antarctic (Amendment) Regulations 2000
  2001/3497 The British Nationality Act 1981 (Amendment of Schedules) Order 2001
  2002/1823 The Extradition (Overseas Territories) Order 2002
  2002/1824 The Extradition (Overseas Territories) (Hong Kong) Order 2002
  2002/1825 The Extradition (Overseas Territories) (Application to Hong Kong) Order 2002

  Turkey
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what investigation he has made into the number of changed appointment times brought about by the visa section of the British Consulate in Istanbul over the last quarter. [88378]
  138W
  Mr. Rammell
  No investigation has been made. On rare occasions, operational difficulties such as staff sickness or security restrictions may mean that interview appointments have to be rearranged. In such circumstances, applicants are usually seen the next day. Applicants can ask to have interview appointments brought forward for compassionate or other compelling reasons.

  UN Headquarters
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the potential move of the United Nations London headquarters to another European capital. [89024]

  Mr. Rammell
  As much UN information is available on-line, the United Nations Secretary- General in his report of 23 September 2002, "Strengthening of the United Nations", recommended the rationalisation of UN Information Centres in Western Europe, with their work being taken on by a single regional "hub". We believe the London UN Information Centre does an excellent job in promoting the UN in the UK. But we also fully support the Secretary-General's Reform report, which we believe will help to achieve a more efficient UN with resources focussed on priority activities. The proposed rationalisation of UN information centres will result in savings, which will be reallocated to those parts of the world with less access to information technology.

  A decision on the location of the Western Europe regional "hub" is not due until late 2003. The decision is for the Secretary-General to take. We would, of course, be delighted if London was chosen.

  Venezuela
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice he is giving to(a) British expatriates living in Caracas and (b) British companies with interests in Venezuela on unrest in that country. [88706]

  Mr. Rammell
  On 21 December we advised all British Nationals in Venezuela to leave unless they had an urgent reason to remain. This decision was taken because of the continuing national strike and the resultant deteriorating security situation. We have maintained regular contact with British companies operating in Venezuela throughout this period.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum-seeking unaccompanied minors were(a) returned to their country of origin prior to their 18th birthday in (i) 1999, (ii) 2000, (iii) 2001 and (iv) 2002, (b) to which countries they were returned in each year and (c) what criteria were applied for each country; and if he will make a statement. [88368]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is not available. Although statistics of the removal of failed asylum seekers include unaccompanied minors; they are not separately identified. The information would therefore be available only by examination of individual case-files at disproportionate cost.

  However, as a matter of policy, unaccompanied children are not removed under Immigration Act powers unless we are satisfied that suitable arrangements have been made for their reception and care in the destination country.

  Jonathan Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there will be changes to the process for families who apply for asylum in-country claiming support following implementation of section 55 of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. [88376]

  Beverley Hughes
  From 8 January 2003, when section 55 comes into force, support will be provided to an asylum seeker and his/her household if he or she has a dependant aged under 18 even if he/she did not apply for asylum as soon as reasonably practicable. It is for the Secretary of State, in practice The National Asylum Support Service (NASS), to determine whether a person is a dependant under 18 and to determine who forms part of the household and can therefore receive support irrespective of whether the asylum seeker concerned applied for asylum as soon as reasonably practicable. Accordingly new procedures are being developed to enable this to take place.

  Children Act
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take to implement the decision of the High Court on 29 November that the Children Act 1989 applies to children held in prison custody. [88233]

  Hilary Benn
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) on 9 December 2002,official Report, column 128W.

  Children in Prison
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children are held in prison, broken down by type of offence. [88519]

  Hilary Benn
  The number of people under the age of 18 that were in prison on 31 October 2002, broken down by offence group is shown in the table.

  Juveniles in Prison Service establishments by offence type, 31 October 2002

  Offence Type

  Number of Persons

  Total

  2,724

  Violence Against the Person

  468

  Sexual Offences

  80

  Burglary

  491

  Robbery

  701

  Theft and Handling

  424

  Fraud and Forgery

  8

  Drugs Offences

  65

  Other Offences

  381

  Offence Not Recorded

  106

  Drug Trafficking
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what funding he has targeted on preventative programmes to tackle(a) drug use and crime and (b) youth offending; what funding is specifically targeted at vulnerable groups; and if he will make a statement. [82713]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]: Planned expenditure across Government in 2002–03 is as follows:
  Prevention of drug misuse by initiatives to disrupt trafficking and to reduce the supply of drugs—£376 million;
  Preventative initiatives to strengthen communities and reduce the impact on them of drug misuse, including by reducing offending and re-offending by the drug misusers who cause the most harm to themselves and others—£171 million; and
  Preventing drug misuse by young people, including through education and early interventions particularly targeted at vulnerable young people—£102 million.

  Emergency Services
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to create a separate offence of assault on members of the emergency services. [88488]

  Hilary Benn
  All assaults against emergency services personnel are totally unacceptable, and the severity of the sentence should reflect the relative seriousness of the crime. Courts already have discretion to impose the appropriate sentence taking into account all the aggravating or mitigating circumstances, within maximum penalties that range from six months for common assault to life imprisonment for causing grievous bodily harm with intent.

  Floating Accommodation
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) which are the mainland locations closest to the floating accommodation that are being planned; [88016]

  (2) what recent representations his Department have received on using floating accommodation centres for asylum seekers; and what size of such centres he is planning. [88015]

  Beverley Hughes
  I met the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff) on 4 July 2002 to discuss floating accommodation for asylum seekers. We have not ruled out this possibility.

  Site searching for potential accommodation centre sites remains ongoing. We will not be putting into the public domain details of such sites unless and until they are considered to be a serious prospect for the siting of an accommodation centre.

  Prison Inmates (Hospital Treatment)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in 2002 prison inmates have been taken to hospital for medical treatment and have been shackled while in hospital; and if he will make a statement. [86824]

  Hilary Benn
  No central records are maintained of the number of prisoners taken to hospital for medical treatment or the number of those who are held under restraint, and the information requested can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The application of restraints to prisoners at hospital is determined by a risk assessment but restraints are not applied to women attending for antenatal treatment or to give birth. Once applied, restraints may be removed subject to a risk assessment, and will be removed where a healthcare professional seeks their removal because of an immediate risk to the health of the prisoner, or because the prisoner is in pain or discomfort, or because the restraints are impeding essential treatment.

  Prisoners (Thrombolysis)
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of heart attack victims in the prison population received thrombolysis within 30 minutes in the most recent period for which figures are available. [88003]

  Hilary Benn
  This information is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Suicides (Youth Detention)
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) young people and (b) women have committed suicide in youth detention in each year since 1997; [87764]

  (2) how many suicides there have been in English prisons in each year since 1997. [87763]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested is in the tables. Table 1 covers the 468 self-inflicted deaths in Prison Service establishments in England since 1 January 1997. Table 2 covers the 71 male and eight 142W
  female self-inflicted deaths of those under the age of 21 held in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales since 1 January 1997. Those under the age of 18 may also be held in Local Authority Secure Units and Secure Training Centres (STCs). Table 3 covers the one self-inflicted death in Local Authority Secure Units in England and Wales since 1 January 1997. There have been no deaths in STCs since the first STC opened in April 1998.

  Table 1: Number of self-inflicted deaths in Prison Service establishments in England between 1 January 1997 and 17 December 2002

  Calendar year

  Number

  1997

  65

  1998

  76

  1999

  89

  2000

  80

  2001

  67

  2002

  91

  Total

  468

  Table 2: The number of self-inflicted deaths in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales by gender and age category between 1 January 1997 and 17 December 2002

  Age category

  Gender/calendar year

  15–17 years

  18–20 years

  Total

  Male

  1997

  0

  8

  8

  1998

  3

  11

  14

  1999

  2

  13

  15

  2000

  3

  9

  12

  2001

  3

  8

  11

  2002

  3

  9

  11

  Total

  13

  58

  71

  Female

  1997

  0

  1

  1

  2000

  0

  4

  4

  2001

  0

  2

  2

  2002

  0

  1

  1

  Total

  0

  8

  Table 3: The number of self-inflicted deaths in Local Authority Secure Units between 1 January 1997 and 17 December 2002

  Number

  1997

  —

  1998

  1

  1999

  —

  2000

  —

  2001

  —

  2002

  —

  The Prison Service and the Youth Justice Board (YJB) are working closely together to try to prevent the suicides of young people held in their care. The Prison Service's suicide prevention and self-harm reduction programme (which applies to all prisoners, regardless of gender and age) includes a series of projects to improve pre-reception. reception and induction arrangements; the exchange of information; the care of prisoners; detoxification; prisoners supporting each other and learning from investigations into deaths in custody.

  Terrorism
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had with European partners on changes to immigration and asylum policy in the fight against terrorism. [88392]

  Beverley Hughes
  The United Kingdom has actively promoted counter terrorism measures within the European Union (EU) and the global fight against terrorism now represents a key priority objective for the EU. We ensure that discussions of immigration and asylum issues, and in particular border control measures, take full account of the contribution that these activities can make to the fight against terrorism.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  High Hedges
  Mr Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce legislation for Northern Ireland to deal with high hedges. [88379]

  Angela Smith
  I have no plans at present to introduce legislation for Northern Ireland on this issue.

  Transport Links
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the potential for enhanced rail, air and sea transport links between Scotland and Northern Ireland. [88936]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Air and shipping services are 'reserved' matters, which are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Transport. Northern Ireland is reasonably well served at present by the existing transport linkages with Scotland, however there is always potential for such links to be further strengthened and enhanced, and I would expect this to happen as the private sector operators respond to new commercial opportunities and the changing market. It remains to be seen though what effect the growing competition between air and shipping operators will have on the Northern Ireland-Scotland routes.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  GATS
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what organisations have been consulted in the UK public consultation on GATS; and what measures have been taken to maximise public contributions to the consultation process. [88002]

  Ms Hewitt
  To date, my Department has distributed over 1,500 copies of the consultation document to NGOs, professional associations, trade associations, industry groups, members of the public and other interested groups and associations. In addition, the consultation document has been available in two formats (PDF and Word) on the DTFs World Trade web site.

  Nuclear Facilities (Safety)
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what advice he has given to civil nuclear facilities regarding security. [88396]

  Mr. Wilson
  Advice on security measures at civil nuclear facilities is provided by the DTI's Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS). The Director of Civil Nuclear Security, the nuclear security regulator, published his first annual report this year outlining his activities, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  It is not Government policy to disclose details of security issues concerning nuclear facilities as this information could be of use to potential terrorists.

  Arbre Biomass Renewable Energy Plant
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she received(a) from and (b) in relation to the Arbre Biomass renewable energy plant; and if she will make a statement. [88101]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: My officials and I, have received a number of representations from those with an interest in the Arbre biomass plant.

  Despite the recent problems that have beset Arbre it is hoped the project will be brought into full commercial operation under new ownership. The Government has indicated its willingness to talk to interested parties willing to create a long-term future for Arbre and to consider proposals which reduce the technical risk of taking the project to commercial operation.

  Many lessons have already been learnt as a result of the project that can be applied to future high efficiency biomass plant, which are likely to be required if dedicated biomass plant are to be available in the medium term.

  ASW Steel
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will publish the communications she has received from(a) Members and (b) officials of the Welsh Assembly about (i) ASW Steel and (ii) Celsa. [87452]

  Ms Hewitt
  DTI Ministers have received a number of communications from Members and officials of the Welsh Assembly Government about the receivership of ASW Holdings Ltd. and the subsequent announcement by its receivers, KPMG, that they have entered into an exclusivity agreement with Celsa to discuss the sale of certain ASW assets. It has been the policy of successive Governments not to disclose confidential communications between Government Departments which are covered by Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what date she was informed that(a) ASW Steel had gone into receivership, (b) the Cardiff plant was closed by the receivers and (c) Celsa had purchased part of ASW Steel's assets. [87453]
  145W
  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: The answer is as follows:

  (a) I became aware that ASW Holdings Ltd. was in difficulty in early July and immediately initiated discussions to try to help the company. My colleague, Minister of State for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions, held an emergency meeting, on 8 July 2002 involving the company, its bankers and credit insurers. Despite these efforts, I was informed on 10 July 2002 that the company unfortunately had been left with no alternative but to call in the receivers.

  (b) On 24 July 2002, the receivers, KPMG, informed my Department that production at the Cardiff plant would not recommence after the annual two-week summer shut down due to begin on 26 July 2002.

  (c) I became aware that Celsa had entered into an exclusivity agreement with KPMG to negotiate the purchase of part of ASW's assets on 11 November 2002.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions her Department had with(a) Members, (b) officials of the Welsh Assembly, (c) officials and (d) receivers of (i) ASW Steel and (ii) Celsa regarding the sale of ASW Steel to Celsa and what the (A) purpose and (B) conclusions of them were. [87459]

  Ms Hewitt
  ASW is in administrative receivership and discussions with potential purchasers of the company are entirely a matter for the receivers, KPMG. My Department has therefore had no discussions with Celsa. My Department has, as you might expect, maintained a dialogue, and met, with KPMG to keep abreast of developments in order to assess the future of the company and its workforce. It has also maintained contact with officials at the Welsh Assembly to exchange information on the progress of discussions between the receivers and potential purchasers.

  The sale of parts of ASW to Celsa has not been finalised. The discussions between Celsa and KPMG are subject to a confidentiality agreement and so full details of the proposed agreement are not known at this stage. Celsa has indicated that if its bid is finalised it hopes to create jobs for around 600 in Cardiff. KPMG continue discussions with prospective purchasers for the parts of the Sheerness plant not included in the proposed Celsa deal and I very much hope that a buyer can be found.

  At the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, officials in HM Consulate General Barcelona have separately attempted, unsuccessfully, to facilitate a private meeting for my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, with Celsa. In doing so, it was made clear that my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, wished to express his concern for his constituents and the job losses involved and that her Majesty's Government was impartial between the UK locations currently occupied by ASW and officials would not be able to accompany my hon. Friend to any meeting with the company. Apart from this, my Department has had no contact with the company.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her Department's involvement in the sale of ASW Steel to Celsa. [87460]
  146W
  Ms Hewitt
  ASW Holdings Ltd. is in administrative receivership and the sale of the company is a matter for the appointed receivers, KPMG. My Department has had no involvement in the proposed sale of parts of ASW Holdings Ltd. to Celsa.

  At the request of my hon. Friend, the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), officials in HM Consulate General Barcelona have separately attempted, unsuccessfully, to facilitate a private meeting for my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey with Celsa. In doing so, it was made clear that my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey wished to express his concern for his constituents and the job losses involved.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what grants have been made to(a) ASW Steel, (b) Celsa, (c) ASW's Cardiff site, and (d) ASW's Sheerness site in each of the last two years, stating for each (i) the date and (ii) conditions of the grant. [87490]

  Ms Hewitt
  I can find no record of grants awarded by my Department to any part of ASW Holdings Ltd. in the last two years, neither is there any record of any grants to the Sheerness plant from authorities in the south-east. Similarly, the Welsh Assembly Government inform me that no grants have been awarded to the Cardiff site from Welsh authorities. Celsa, although it is currently in discussion with KPMG for the purchase of parts of ASW, is a Spanish company with no known business operations in the UK, and so would not have received any grants in the UK.

  British Energy
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the financial implications to BNFL of the rescue package for British Energy; and if she will make a statement. [88662]

  Mr. Wilson
  This is a commercial matter for BNFL.

  Broadband Satellite (SEEDA)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much was spent on the SEEDA's policy to introduce broadband by satellite; and why the scheme was discontinued. [88014]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: To date approximately 200 grants have been offered at £1,060 each during a pilot phase of SEEDA's satellite broadband programme. The trial ran from June through to November 2002. The programme has not been discontinued. The results of the pilot are being evaluated and it is planned that the programme will be launched across the whole of the south-east region early in the new year.

  Child Care
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment has been made of the role of regional development agencies in promoting growth of child care in industry; and if she will make a statement. [89114]
  147W
  Alan Johnson
  I strongly believe that the appropriate provision of child care makes an important contribution to the achievement of economic prosperity at national and regional level. Accordingly, officials in the Department and the Department for Education and Skills have been discussing with the RDAs ways in which they can help to promote and support both public and private provision of child care in their regions.

  Christmas Expenses
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many departmental Christmas cards she and her Ministers intend to send in 2002; how much these cards will cost(a) to buy, (b) to post and (c) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes; and if she will place in the Library a sample copy of the official Christmas card she has sent this year. [88108]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: In total, 800 departmental Christmas cards were sent by Ministers in my Department. The total cost of designing and printing these cards was approximately £269 and the cost to post them was about £250. It is not possible to estimate the staff costs involved in signing, addressing and placing the cards in envelopes without incurring disproportionate cost.

  All expenditure incurred in the purchase and despatch of official Christmas cards was made in accordance with the departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in `Government Accounting'.

  I have arranged for a sample of the departmental Christmas card to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Coal Health Compensation Schemes
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been spent on the coal health compensation schemes; and what percentage of the total has gone to(a) claimants, (b) solicitors and (c) other organisations, with specific reference to (i) IRISC, (ii) Healthcall, (iii) Schlumberga Senna and (iv) Hayes. [88285]

  Mr. Wilson
  The information is as follows:

  COPD

  VWF £ million

  Total £ million

  Percentage £ million

  Total damages paid

  520

  660

  1,180

  73

  Total solicitors' costs paid

  100

  60

  160

  10

  Other costs related to claim settlements which include payments to contractors

  —

  —

  1270

  17

  1 Due to commercial confidentiality, the Department is unable to provide a breakdown of the figures paid to individual contractors.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will reply to the letter of 16 October regarding car imports from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. [88633]
  148W
  Ms Hewitt
  My office cannot find any trace of the letter. I suggest that the hon. Member sends it to me again and I will ensure that it receives prompt attention.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will reply to the letter of October 2002 regarding mis-selling of pensions from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. [88634]

  Ms Hewitt
  The letter was transferred to the Treasury for response since the subject is the responsibility of that Department.

  Embedded Generation
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress she has made in encouraging embedded generation; and if she will make a statement. [87883]

  Mr. Wilson
  The DTI has taken a number of initiatives to facilitate the development of embedded or distributed generation. Many of the initiatives are being progressed through the Distributed Generation Co-ordinating Group (DGCG), established jointly by the DTI and Ofgem, to monitor the implementation of the Embedded Generation Working Group's recommendations. These recommendations focus on ensuring that embedded generation is treated in a fair and equitable fashion when connecting to the distribution networks and operating in the electricity market.

  Many of the activities of the DGCG are funded via the DTI's Renewable Energy Programme, which also supports a range of other activities designed specifically to facilitate the development of embedded or distributed generation within the UK.

  Further and Higher Education Policy
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had on the needs of employers with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in connection with formulation of policies on further and higher education. [87489]

  Ms Hewitt
  I am well aware that the business perspective needs to be reflected in the higher education and further education agendas.

  To this end, I have regular meetings with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to discuss these issues. The last such meeting was on 1 December 2002. There are regular meetings between my right hon. and hon. Friends, the Minister for Work and Pensions, the Minister for Adult Learning, the Economic Secretary and the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness, in order to develop the agenda. Also, senior officials from the two Departments meet regularly to discuss the strategy fully.

  Green Ministers
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which Minister in her Department is the nominated Green Minister; how often she has attended meetings of the Green Ministers; and which official has responsibility for the DEFRA rural proofing check-list in her Department. [88453]
  149W
  Mr. Wilson
  I am DTI's Green Minister.

  It is established practice under Exemption 2 of Part II of the code of practice on access to Government information not to disclose information relating to the proceedings of the Cabinet and its committees— such as Ministerial attendance at committees.

  Departments do not publish a list of officials responsible for the DEFRA rural proofing check-list as personnel and machinery of Government changes mean that any published list would become out of date fairly quickly.

  Icelandic Trawlermen
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will include the Erimo on the list of eligible vessels for the purpose of the compensation scheme for former Icelandic water trawlermen. [80120]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Government are not satisfied on the basis of the available evidence that the Erimo made voyages within 200 miles of Iceland, as required under the scheme rules. It would not therefore be appropriate for it to be added to the list.

  Investment Committee
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the terms of reference are for the Investment Committee; and if she will make a statement. [87926]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: Draft terms of reference for the Business Support Investment Committee are to be discussed at its first meeting in January and the agreed version will then be published.

  Knowledge Transfer Initiatives
  Mr. Mark Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money her Department will spend on knowledge transfer initiatives in(a) 2003–4, (b) 2004–5 and (c) 2005–6 following the comprehensive spending review 2002. [87836]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: As part of its 2002 spending review (SR2002) settlement, the Department of Trade and Industry's resources for innovation and knowledge transfer will rise from £338 million in 2002–3 to £388 million by 2005–6. My Department is currently developing—as part of our business planning process—detailed allocations for individual budgets and activities for the SR2002 period.

  In addition, through the Office of Science and Technology and the UK science budget, my Department provides funding for activities which support the commercial exploitation of science. This includes, for example, funding for the Higher EducationInnovation Fund and the Public Sector Research Establishment (PSRE) Fund. For more information, see www.ost.golv.uk/reerach/funding/budget 03–06/dti-sciencebudgetbook.pdf

  Ministerial Engagements
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many engagements were 150W
  undertaken outside London (a) by her or her predecessor and (b) by ministers in her Department in January (i) 2000, (ii) 2001 and (iii) 2002. [87348]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: I refer the hon Member to the answer given to him on 16 December 2002, official Report, column 608W, by my hon Friend the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much of the time she spent in the last six months working as a Minister was spent on issues relating to her role as(a) Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, (b) Minister for Women and (c) E-Minister in the Cabinet. [87454]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: My roles as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Minister for Women and E-Minister in the Cabinet are closely linked, and it is not practicable to make an assessment of my time spent on each subject without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Nimrod/Astute Contracts
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether her Department hired UBS Warburg to advise it and the MoD on issues arising from the Nimrod and Astute contracts with BAE Systems. [88412]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government has retained the services of UBS Warburg to provide specialist financial advice. There is nothing unusual in this, as it is not uncommon for Government to bring in external experts for specialist advice.

  Post Office Network
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reports she has made to the Prime Minister on progress in implementing the recommendations made by the PIU for modernising the Post Office network; if she will publish the reports; and if she will make a statement. [88042]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: Postcomm reports annually on the post office network and its second annual report was published on 30 September 2002. The Prime Minister's Office has also been kept abreast of progress in implementing the recommendations made by the PIU for modernising the Post Office network; there are no plans for publication. We have separately kept Parliament informed of progress.

  Post Office Benefit Payments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she has taken to facilitate the distribution to customers by sub-postmasters of material produced by their trade association concerning changes to the payment of benefits and pensions; and if she will make a statement. [88666]
  151W
  Mr. Timms
  The marketing of universal banking services is, like other post office services, a matter for Post Office Ltd, in line with any contractual obligations. It is inappropriate for other organisations or individuals to produce their own marketing materials. Competing marketing materials would run the risk of misleading and worrying customers.

  Post Office Group
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the financial position of the Post Office Group. [88039]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: Royal Mail Holdings published their interim financial statements on 14 November 2002. These showed that in the six months to 29 September 2002 the company made a post-tax loss of £484 million on turnover of just under £4 billion. The company's accumulated capital and reserves stood at £2,127 million.

  The Government believe the necessary changes to remedy this disappointing performance are now under way. These changes include the appointment of new board members, a major restructuring programme under the chairman, Allan Leighton, and making available the £1.8 billion of accumulated reserves, which will back investment required in the mails business and Post Office Ltd.

  Post Offices
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will set out the timetable for(a) testing and (b) installing the software systems for operating the new Post Office card accounts. [86211]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: These are matters that fall within the day-to-day responsibility of Post Office Ltd. and I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Post Office will advise about banking services at Post Offices. [86558]

  Mr. Timms
  Post Office Ltd. currently provides information to customers on banking arrangements at Post Office branches.

  The Government and Post Office Ltd. are working together to ensure that frontline staff have all the information they need to answer any questions from customers about banking facilities in Post Office branches.

  Post Office Ltd. has now sent three pieces of communication to all Post Office branches: a leaflet entitled "Your essential guide to your customers' banking options" to explain to sub-postmasters all the options available to customers; a customer child benefit leaflet for issue to customers; and, a Banking Information Pack. I am informed that all have received positive feedback from sub-postmasters.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices are being run by modified sub-postmasters, working on(a) short-term, (b) temporary contracts and (c) long-term contracts; and if she will make a statement; [88041]
  152W
  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: These are matters that fall within the day-to-day responsibility of Post Office Ltd. and I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 16 December 2002,official Report, columns 542–43W, on post offices, when she expects the first proposals for closures to be announced. [88476]

  Mr. Timms
  I understand from Post Office Ltd. that the first proposals for post office closures under the urban reinvention programme went out to public consultation under the Code of Practice in respect of 25 offices on 29 November, followed by closure proposals for a further 32 offices on 16 December.

  Post Offices (Benefits)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will estimate the change in revenue of the average Post Office branch as a result of changes to the method of paying benefits from April 2003. [86450]

  Ms Hewitt
  The migration of benefit payments to ACT will take place over two years from April 2003. There will not be a sudden drop in benefit book related income in April 2003. On changeover of payment arrangements, all customers who wish to do so will be able to access their benefits in cash at a post office counter and sub-postmasters will be remunerated for those transactions. The change in revenue as a result of changes to the method of paying benefits from April 2003 will vary according to the individual circumstances of each office, and the extent to which they develop new revenue streams, including from banking services.

  Post Office Ltd. continues to develop plans for expansion of revenue generating services in the post office network. Banking will be a central part of the Post Office's strategy to move forward. Universal banking services, together with plans for the expansion of network banking, should lead to substantial increases in the range and volume of banking at post offices, tapping into a very much larger customer base than benefit recipients alone.

  Post Offices (Chorley)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when Chorley council area post offices will be ready to use post office customer card accounts. [87519]

  Mr. Timms
  Good progress is being made on the implementation of universal banking services, including the card account at the Post Office. The programme is on track to deliver in advance of migration of benefits to ACT in 2003.

  Post Offices (GP Services)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her plans for Government general practitioner services to be provided in post offices. [88673]
  153W
  Mr. Timms
  As I announced on 15 October, although the outcome of the evaluation of the Your Guide pilot of post offices as Government General Practitioners showed that a publicly funded national Your Guide service would not provide value for money and we therefore decided not to extend it, the pilot did identify opportunities for individual Government Departments to deliver services through post offices in the future. There is also commercial interest in placing kiosks in retail outlets including post offices. It is expected that a commercial kiosk pilot run by E-Daily will start in Cornwall next year and that this will involve a number of post offices. Officials in my Department are in contact with other departments about the potential for using E-Daily as an information channel and I understand that E-Daily is in direct touch with other departments as well as with the National Federation of Sub Postmasters.

  Postal Services
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is on the maintenance of universal postal service provision at a uniform price. [87970]

  Mr. Timms
  The universal postal service obligation was laid down in the Postal Services Act 2000 and consists of a service provided at an affordable price determined by a public tariff uniform throughout the United Kingdom. It includes the delivery each working day to the home or premises of every individual in the United Kingdom and a collection each working day from access points, subject to the exceptions to this agreed with Postcomm.

  Under section 3 of the Act, it is the primary duty of the Regulator, Postcomm, to maintain the universal postal service. The Government's commitment to that service is consequently enshrined in the Postal Services Act.

  Power Generation (State Aid)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the admissibility of state aid to the power generation industry under EU regulations; and what recent consultations she has had on this issue. [88048]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: State aid may be paid to the power generation industry, subject to commission approval and consistency with the terms of the EC treaty, under a number of horizontal frameworks and guidelines. These include the community guidelines on state aid for environmental protection and for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty. My ministerial colleagues and I have been in contact with the European Commission and others about the rescue aid recently granted to British Energy, which was approved by the commission on 27 November.

  Productivity
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research has been conducted by her Department into the relationship between expenditure on research and development and productivity. [87837]
  154W
  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]My Department undertakes some studies into the factors affecting business innovation, including industrial and public research and development and its effects on productivity. Some examples can be found on a DTI economists' Website www.dti.gov.uk/iese. We also keep in close touch with the large amount of academic research on the links between R&D and GDP growth and productivity. Some of this material was summarised in the joint DTI/Treasury./DfES publication Investing in Innovation, pages 11–12. Available at www.hm-treasury.gov.uk.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what business support is provided by regional development agencies. [87999]

  Alan Johnson
  A key part of the RDAs' role is to ensure there is appropriate business support in their regions to support the regional economic strategies which the RDAs have developed and are implementing, working with regional and local partners closely.

  Information on what the RDAs are doing is available in the regional economic strategies, which can be accessed on the RDAs' website (via www.rdauk.org) and in the RDAs' corporate plans. The corporate plans for 2003–6 will be available in the Libraries of the House in the spring.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which projects involving renewable energy sources have been accepted for generation export since May 2001. [89315]

  Mr. Wilson
  The information requested is not available since there is no means of determining whether any of the electricity exported is generated from renewable energy sources.

  Retired Mineworkers
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many retired mineworkers have received a lump sum payment as compensation for low level payments from the Mineworkers Pension Scheme; and how many were from the Forest of Dean coalfield. [87593]

  Mr. Timms
  To date over £56.9 million has been paid to 42,500 MPS members on the lowest pensions who left British Coal before or shortly after 1975. 57 members with postcodes in the area of the Forest of Dean have been paid.

  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many retired mineworkers from the Forest of Dean coalfield have been turned down for the compensatory lump sum payment to the Mineworkers Pension Scheme. [87594]

  Mr. Timms
  The Scheme to help those MPS members on the lowest pensions who left British Coal before or shortly after 1975 does not operate on the basis of applications. MPS members who are identified by DTI's agents, Paymaster, as meeting the Scheme's criteria
  155W
  are automatically sent the appropriate sum. While Paymaster, and my Department, both receive enquiries from MPS members about eligibility, no records are kept of the addresses of those advised they are ineligible.

  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to assist those retired mineworkers from the Forest of Dean coalfield who are not eligible for the lump sum payment as compensation for the Mineworkers Pension Scheme owing to them not fulfilling the criteria of being in the scheme for five years from April 1961. [87595]

  Mr. Timms
  The intention of the scheme to help those MPS members on the lowest pensions who left British Coal before or shortly after 1975 is to address the problem of retired mineworkers who receive very low pensions in spite of lengthy service in the industry. For this reason, mineworkers with less than five years contributory service were excluded. For most MPS members, service prior to April 1961 is not included because they opted to take a refund of contributions with respect to that service, although service prior to April 1961 is counted in the cases of those who chose not to exercise that option. We have no plans to revisit these criteria.

  Single Mail Delivery
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the Post Office's(a) proposal to move to a single mail delivery and (b) decision to cancel late collections from city centre post boxes. [88140]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: These are matters that fall within the day-to-day responsibility of Royal Mail Group plc and I have therefore asked the chairman to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Small Retail Businesses
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimates she has made of the number of people employed in small retail businesses in(a) the UK, (b) Lancashire, (c) the north west and (d) Wales. [R] [88646]

  Nigel Griffiths
  At the start of 2001 there were 1.1 million people employed in small retail businesses in the UK with less than 250 employees.

  Data are available for the north west and Wales at the start of 1999 but only at a greater aggregation that includes wholesale, repairs, retail, hotels and restaurants. There were 361,000 people employed in small businesses classified to these sectors in the north west and 141,000 in Wales.

  County level data are not available.

  Solar Panels
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people have applied for a grant to aid the installation of solar panelling for their domestic electricity; and how much money has been set aside for this purpose. [87963]
  156W
  Mr. Wilson
  Under the £20 million major demonstration programme, 126 small-scale applications had been received by the end of November 2002. Of these, 25 had been completed, a further 79 had a grant offered, nine were on hold, eight had been withdrawn and five rejected. Total grants (which represent 50 per cent of the total cost of the PV systems) to date is around £860,000.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals she has to improve the promotion of solar panels. [87964]

  Mr. Wilson
  The £20 million first phase of the Major Photovoltaic Demonstration Programme has already received publicity through newspaper and magazine articles and in items on TV and radio. The Programme Management Contractor is promoting the programme through thousands of flyers and fact sheets, and at seminars, conferences and exhibitions, and a number of PV suppliers and installers are doing their own promotion on the back of the programme. We will continually review the marketing of the programme, particularly to geographical areas and sectors which show a poor level of take-up.

  Solar PV Industry
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria are being used to decide which large scale project bids under Stream 2 of her Department's solar PV major demonstration programme receive capital grant funding. [87716]

  Mr. Wilson
  The criteria for selecting Stream 2 projects are set out in the Guidance Notes for the Application Process and on the programme website www.solarpvgrants.co.uk

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will begin the process of determining whether phase one of the solar PV major demonstration programme has been a success. [87718]

  Mr. Wilson
  The first phase of the PV M DP runs for three years and, while progress is constantly being reviewed, we will probably not undertake formal evaluation until the third year.

  Telecommunications Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the outcome was of the Telecommunications Council held in Brussels on 5 December: what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [86705]

  Mr. Timms
  I represented the UK at the Telecommunications Council in Brussels on 5 December.

  There was a policy debate on the situation in the telecommunications sector in Europe, and the Council adopted conclusions which emphasised the importance of developing content, services and applications for the information society, and the widespread availability and use of broadband networks, using a multi-platform approach as set out in the eEurope 2005 Action Plan. The conclusions also underlined the importance of implementation of the new regulatory framework for electronic communications, and agreed that intervention in the form of state aid was not the way

  157W
  forward. In particular, the Council emphasised the importance of placing the information society and the telecommunications sector high on the agenda of the Spring European Council, and invited the Commission to report on these subjects in due time beforehand and if necessary put forward appropriate proposals.

  There was also adoption of two resolutions: one on the implementation (including the benchmarking) of the eEurope Action Plan 2005; and another on promoting a culture of network and information security. Council conclusions were also adopted on eSkills. There was also an agreement on a general approach, without the need for a vote, towards the MODINIS programme which helps fund the implementation of the eEurope Action Plan 2005, and work on network security. Regarding the dti Department of Trade and Industry Commission's proposal for a Directive on the re-use and commercial exploitation of public sector information, the presidency concluded that a common position is likely to be adopted at the March Council following adoption of an opinion by the European Parliament.

  The Commission also gave a short presentation on its eighth report on the implementation of the current regulatory framework for telecommunications which reiterated the importance of timely, effective and coherent implementation of the new regulatory framework for electronic communical ions. The Commission also reported progress on its work on open platforms for digital television and 3G mobile, and on electronic identification and authentication systems in e-commerce, on which public hearings are expected in the New Year.

  On the reform of ICANN, the private sector company based in the United States that manages the Internet domain name system, the Commission gave an update on the positive progress towards successful reform achieved at the latest ICANN reform negotiations which took place in Shanghai in October.

  TUPE Regulations
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will respond to the consultation on the reform of TUPE Regulations, with particular reference to the treatment of occupational pension rights; and if she will make a statement. [88046]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: The Green Paper "Pensions and the Workplace", published on 17 December 2002, reaffirms that the Government remain committed to the long-standing policy of protection for employees' occupational pension rights on a "broadly comparable" basis for public sector transfers, both on first transfer of a service to the private sector and on any subsequent transfers within the private sector. It also seeks further views on the question of providing a degree of explicit legal protection for occupational pension rights on transfer, including in the private sector, in the light of the wide range of views expressed in response to the options put forward in our initial consultation at the end of 2001.

  As regards the other aspects of our proposed TUPE reform, we aim to carry out a further round of public consultation in 2003 on draft revised regulations.

  Undersea Cables
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the likely cost of undersea cables to take power from northern Scotland to southern England, down the west and east coasts; and if she will make a statement. [88663]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department commissioned a high level feasibility study into the possibility of building a subsea cable to transfer electricity generated in Scotland down the west coast to markets in the south. The report, which was published in February and is available on the DTI website: www.dti.gov.uk, includes capital costings for different systems and costs will be dependent of course on the length of the cable and its capacity. For illustrative purposes, the report concludes that the capital costs of an HVDC link capable of transferring 2000 MW of electricity would range from £790 million for a 200 km cable to £1,700 million for a 700 km cable.

  The report is a useful contribution to the important debate on the best way of transmitting renewable energy generated in Scotland to centres of demand in the south.

  Wind Power
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on how the Government plans to reach its aim of 6 per cent. of Britain's electricity to be provided by wind power by 2010. [88066]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government's target for renewable energy is that, by 2010, 10 per cent. of electricity should be supplied from sources eligible for the renewables obligation. While we expect wind to make a substantial contribution to this target, no specific targets have been set in relation to its contribution to the overall 10 per cent. target.

TREASURY

  Bank Clearance System
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when power will be granted to the Office of Fair Trading to allow it to regulate the bank clearance system; and if he will make a statement. [88661]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government is closely monitoring developments in payment systems and will introduce legislation to give the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) new powers to promote effective competition in payment systems as soon as parliamentary time allows. Progress has already been made through, for example, the removal of charges for most cash withdrawals from automated teller machines ("ATMs") and reforms to the governance structures of the main UK payment systems. The Government welcome these moves by payment system participants to address the competition issues identified by the Cruickshank report and urges the industry to continue with these reforms.

  To promote its understanding of how payment systems operate, and to help pave the way for its prospective powers, the OFT announced on 27 November that it will conduct an empirical study into recent payment system developments, starting early in 2003.
  159W

  Productivity Performance Figures
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the productivity performance figures were in each year since 1992 for(a) output per worker and (b) output per hour. [88856]

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

  Letter from K. Dunnell to Dr. Vincent Cable, dated 7 January 2003:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question about what the productivity performance figures were for each year since 1992 for (a) output per worker and (b) output per hour. I am replying in his absence. (88856)

  The table below shows indices of output per job and output per hour for the UK whole economy for each year from 1992 to 2001 along with the annual growth rates.

  UK whole economy productivity indices and growth, 1992 to 2001

  Index (1995 = 100)

  Annual growth rate (per cent)

  Year

  Output per job

  Output per hour

  Output per job

  Output per hour

  1992

  91.0

  3.4

  1993

  94.3

  95.4

  3.6

  1994

  98.2

  98.5

  4.1

  3.2

  1995

  100.0

  100.0

  1.8

  1.5

  1996

  101.5

  101.8

  1.5

  1.8

  1997

  103.1

  103.3

  1.5

  1.4

  1998

  105.0

  106.0

  1.9

  2.6

  1999

  105.8

  107.5

  0.8

  1.4

  2000

  107.5

  110.6

  1.6

  2.9

  2001

  108.6

  111.5

  1.0

  0.8

  Central Government Accounts
  Norman Lamb
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress towards publication of the first consolidated Central Government accounts for 2003–4. [89271]

  John Healey
  The Government is working towards publication of the first consolidated Central Government accounts for 2003–04 by producing dry run accounts for 2001–02 and 2002–03. Data in respect of 2001–02 is currently being submitted to the Treasury by departments.

  Climate Change Levy
  Sue Doughty
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer what the anticipated receipts are during the current fiscal year from those companies subject to negotiated agreements under climate change levy. [88539]

  John Healey
  No estimate is available of levy receipts the Exchequer anticipates to receive during 2002–03 from those companies covered by negotiated climate change agreements.

  Debt Relief
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on further debt relief additional to that currently available. [87572]
  160W
  John Healey
  The UK Government have been at the forefront of the international debate on debt relief issues, and continues to press for the rapid and full implementation of the enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative. Under the terms of the H1PC initiative bilateral creditors tyPlcally provide 90 per cent. debt relief. However, many creditors, including the UK, go further and provide 100 per cent. debt relief to qualifying countries.

  In the provision of interim debt relief at Decision Point to reach a debt-to-exports ratio of 150 per cent. this additional bilateral voluntary debt relief is excluded. Subsequently at Completion Point if this debt ratio is greater than 150 per cent., perhaps due to new borrowing or weaker export prices, the initiative provides the option for further debt relief or 'topping-up'. Moreover, the UK has argued that we should be prepared to be proactive and flexible in providing this additional debt relief at Completion Point.

  But at present this additional bilateral voluntary debt relief is included in the calculation of any 'topping-up' needed, and the net effect is that this additional relief benefits other creditors and not the HI PC. The UK believes that this additional relief should be excluded from the calculation of topping-up at Completion Point, and this would delineate more clearly the burden sharing between all creditors, both bilateral and multilateral, in the HIPC initiative.

  This policy would ensure that this voluntary debt relief over and above HIPC terms would be truly additional. Moreover, it would provide an additional degree of support to vulnerable HIPCs facing the challenges of a global economic slowdown and weaker commodity prices.

  However, even the provision of 100 per cent. debt relief to all low-income countries would still far short of the resources needed to fund the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). It is our ultimate objective to make a lasting difference in the lives of the world's poorest people by achieving the MDGs, but debt relief is only part of the solution: the real issue is one of total resources. That is why the Chancellor has proposed an International Financing Facility to leverage significant additional resources from developed countries, to help achieve the 2015 MDGs. Increasing our support from $50billion currently to the $100 billion a year needed to meet the MDGs would transform the ability of countries to increase their investment in critical poverty reducing programmes. The UK Government will shortly be publishing a detailed proposal on the International Financing Facility.

  Departmental Sickness Absence
  Norman Lamb
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures have been taken to reduce sickness absence in his Department in line with Spending Review 2000 SDA Target E2.1, as described on page 33 of the HM Treasury Departmental Report 2002. [89268]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury has taken a number of steps to manage the level of sick absence including publishing clear guidance of the responsibilities for staff and line
  161W
  managers, revising procedures for recording sick absence, an increased role for the Welfare Officer, closer involvement of Human Resources, and running a flu vaccination and health screening programmes for Treasury staff.

  Departmental Targets
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what formula is being used to measure(a) annual efficiency gains and (b) savings of running costs within his Department in order to meet the targets outlined on page 75 of the HM Treasury departmental report 2002; [89258]

  (2) if he will make a statement on why it has not been possible to measure aggregate Treasury output, as mentioned on page 75 of the HM Treasury departmental report 2002. [89257]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury monitors those outputs which can be measured, such as replies to parliamentary questions, letters or other communications with the public, payment performance, and so on. However the Treasury's primary output is policy advice. Such outputs are difficult to measure and without a measure of overall output it is not possible to measure efficiency.

  Departmental Working Hours
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the percentages of excessive hours worked within his Department were in(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001. [89256]

  Ruth Kelly
  This information is available in the Library of the House and was referred to in the answer I gave on 25 February 2002 to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr Cable),official Report, columns 1045–46.

  E-procurement
  Norman Lamb
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer if his Department has purchased an e-procurement system. [89273]

  Ruth Kelly
  H M Treasury is in the process of introducing such a system.

  Earnings Statistics
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the ratio was of female to male full-time equivalent earnings for(a) non-manual, (b) manual and (c) all workers in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [88589]

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

  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Mr. Peter Bottomley, dated 7 January 2003:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on the ratio between female and male earnings. I am replying in his absence. (88589)
  162W
  The attached table gives the ratio of female to male average weekly earnings, for April 2002 based on the annual New Earnings Survey (NES). Monthly data of average weekly earnings are not available.

  Ratio of female to male average earnings1

  April 2002

  Manual

  0.68

  Non-manual

  0.66

  All

  0.75

  1 Full time employees on adult rates whose pay for the survey pay period was unaffected by absence

  Source:

  New Earnings Survey

  Enterprise Areas
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer what the new enterprise areas announced in the Pre-Budget Report are; how they were chosen; and if he will make a statement,. [88201]

  John Healey
  Enterprise Areas are designed to improve access to and take-up of a number of Government policy measures focused on tackling the barriers to small business in disadvantaged areas. They are intended to ensure that these policies form a coherent package from the perspective of existing and potential new businesses, so that take-up by businesses in disadvantaged areas is easier, and effectiveness in improving outcomes is increased. In addition to stamp duty exemption on property transfers up to £150,000, and policies designed to tackle market failures and provide better business support, the Government is looking at ways to make the planning regime in Enterprise Areas more flexible.

  The Enterprise Areas are the 2,000 most deprived areas across the UK. They are the same as the areas which benefit from the stamp duty exemption on property transfers up to £150,000. A list can be found at www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/so/disadvantaged.htm. A list was also placed in the House of Commons Library on 27 November 2001.

  The areas were selected using the best available data on multiple deprivation in each of the countries of the UK. These were: in England, the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2000; in Wales, the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation 2000; in Scotland, the Scottish Area Deprivation Index 1998; and in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Measures of Deprivation 2001.

  External Suppliers
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the external suppliers used by his Department for training purposes, as stated on page 37 of the HM Treasury departmental report 2002; and if he will make a statement on the assessment he has made of the value for money delivered by these suppliers and the programmes. [89260]
  163W
  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury has contracts with various external training providers to deliver the Treasury's Development Programme. The companies used are as follows:

  Accountancy Tuition Centre

  Angel Scott Associates

  Birkbeck College

  CMPS

  London School of Economics

  Parity Training

  Sunley Management Centre

  Trainers at Work

  All contracts with external suppliers are procured on a competitive basis, initially for two years but with the option to extend the contract to a maximum of five years. The provision of centrally managed training means that training is delivered on cost effective terms and can be regularly monitored to ensure that it continues to meet the Treasury's needs.

  Film Production (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the income tax receipts forgone, since 1997, as a result of Her Majesty's Government's policy of making tax relief available for investment in film production; and if he will make a statement. [88677]

  John Healey
  Film production benefits from a number of tax reliefs that accelerate the deduction of expenditure on British qualifying films. The estimated tax cost of relief provided under Section 48 of the Finance (No.2) Act 1997 is £440 million for the period 1997–98 to 2001–2, over double the amount that would have been available under the previous arrangements. The tax cost of the other reliefs is estimated to be an additional £70 million a year.

  Government Borrowing
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 12 December,official Report, column 472W on government borrowing, what the evidence is of the effect of government borrowing on wholesale commercial rates. [88510]

  Ruth Kelly
  As the right hon. gentleman will note from the Chief Secretary's previous answer of 12 December, there is no clear-cut evidence regarding the impact of government borrowing on commercial borrowing rates. In particular, the statistical evidence in the economic literature from both time series and cross-sectional studies is inconclusive on this question.

  Honours and Dignities
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will break down by main spending heads HM Treasury's payments towards(a) the Civil List and (b) honours and dignities, as listed in the table on page 35 of the HM Treasury departmental report 2002. [89259]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Queen's Civil List is the funding provided by Parliament to enable the Queen to undertake her duties as Head of State; it meets the 164W
  central staff costs and running expenses of Her Majesty's official Household. The figure of £8,902,000 for 2001–2 in table 4.4 of the Treasury's departmental report also includes annuities granted by Parliament for HM Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother and HRH the Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. It comprises:

  £

  Queen's Civil List

  7,900,000

  Parliamentary annuities

  HM Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother

  643,000

  HRH the Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

  359,000

  Parliamentary annuities for other members of the royal family are reimbursed by Her Majesty and are therefore not included in the net payments shown in the departmental report.

  On the breakdown of costs associated with honours and dignities, I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer to his question 89263.

  House Price Inflation
  Mr. Love
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the accuracy of the estimates he used of house price inflation from(a) major mortgage providers and (b) the Land Registry; and if he will make a statement. [89394]

  Ruth Kelly
  There are significant concerns about whether currently available measures give adequate estimates of house price inflation. The Land Registry produces the most comprehensive measure, covering all transactions in England and Wales. However, price changes as measured by the Land Registry are affected by changes in the composition (mix) of transactions, as well as pure price changes. Mix- adjustment is desirable as there is significant variation from one period to the next in the characteristics of properties sold size, type eg flat or house, location and other factors that affect price. Figures from the Halifax and Nationwide are mix-adjusted, and also more timely, but only cover properties purchased with mortgages from these providers. These two indicators can show significant differences, highlighting concerns as to how representative they are. The Government is concerned about such discrepancies, and is therefore planning to launch a new official house price measure in the Summer 2003, though it will not cover non-mortgage financed house purchases.

  Household Income
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take further steps, in addition to those presented in the pre-Budget report, to reduce the division in household income between England's northern and southern regions. [89023]

  Ruth Kelly
  Measures associated with Public Sector Agreement targets, such as those related to children in low-income households, to regional economic performance, and to the employment rates of disadvantaged areas, are likely to have a positive impact on the regional distribution of household income.

  Import Controls
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many staff posts and how much money is being transferred to HM Customs, and to the Department of Food, Agriculture and Rural Affairs in view of the transfer to HM Customs of responsibility for controls of ports over the import of plant and animal products; [88432]

  (2) what additional (a) manpower and (b) financial provision he is making available to HM Customs and Excise to equip them to carry out their new responsibilities in respect of the import of plant and animal products; [88430]

  (3) what targets he has set for HM Customs and Excise in respect of their new responsibilities to control the import of plant and animal products. [88431]

  John Healey
  The recent government spending review made available £5 million of new money in 2003–4 and £10 million per annum in the subsequent two years to address the issue of illegal imports of plant and animal products.

  Manpower and other financial resources to be made available to Customs in respect of their new responsibilities in this area, together with the nature of targets to be achieved, are still the subject of discussions between Defra, Customs and other relevant Departments and Agencies.

  Landfill
  Whitehead
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of schemes funded by tax foregone under the landfill levy would be eligible for funding under the terms of the allocation of funds for public spending to encourage sustainable waste management in(a) 2003–4, (b) 2004–5 and (c) 2005–6. [88585]

  John Healey
  The design of the public spending programme will be determined following further work on the management of waste policy.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many environmental projects which are funded by the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme and that contribute to achieving the United Kingdom biodiversity action plan, have a completion date beyond March 2003. [88974]

  John Healey
  There are no statistics that detail how many environmental projects, funded by the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme, contribute to achieving, the United Kingdom biodiversity action plan and have a completion date beyond March 2003. Contributions made by landfill site operators for the period up until 31 March 2003 will still be able to be spent after that date on current projects. A reformed tax credit scheme, worth around £47 million a year, will continue to be available for community environment projects, including those that contribute to biodiversity, after 31 March.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Government will make a decision on the criteria or scope of the replacement spending scheme for the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme which runs until March 2003. [88975]
  166W
  John Healey
  Decisions on the criteria and scope of the replacement spending scheme for waste related projects will be made by Budget 2003, as the Government are aware of the need to make announcements in good time.

  The general tax credit scheme will continue for local community environmental projects after 31 March 2003, with around the present level of funding available for these projects. The Government are currently considering the detailed administration and the criteria for the scheme and will be announcing any further changes over the coming months.

  Life Insurance Companies
  Barbara Follett
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has for changing the rules for taxing life insurance companies. [89550]

  Dawn Primarolo
  On 23 December 2002 the Inland Revenue issued a press notice setting out measures to be included in the Finance Bill 2003 changing some of the rules for taxing life insurance companies. The proposed package of measures will remove certain anomalies and prevent a small number of companies exploiting particular circumstances to pay much less tax than other companies writing similar business. The changes will therefore protect the tax base and ensure a fairer distribution of tax across the industry. Copies of the Press Notice have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and full details have been published on the Inland Revenue's web site.

  Non-domicile Tax Laws
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates have been made of the amount of foreign investment in the UK resulting from non-domicile tax laws. [88551]

  John Healey
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply the Paymaster General gave her on 4 December 2002,official Report, column 840W.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to improve his targets for responding to Named Day Parliamentary questions. [89322]

  John Healey
  An increasing proportion of Named Day Parliamentary questions was answered on time by the Treasury in each session since PSA targets were introduced in 1998–99, as the table shows:

  Percentage answered on time

  1998–99

  35.3

  1999–2000

  59.4

  2000–1

  63.0

  2001–2

  73.2

  167W
  71.1 per cent. of Named Day questions have been answered on the nominated day in the 2002–3 session to date.

  Pollution Targets
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the economic measures which he has taken that have as one of their objectives helping the UK meet its Kyoto carbon dioxide emissions targets. [87735]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to previous Budget documentation which detail the taxation policies and the climate change programme which covers other regulatory and spending initiatives that the Government have introduced to the help the UK meet its legally binding commitments to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide under the Kyoto Protocol.

  A list of environmental initiatives is published in both the Budget and pre-Budget reports (in the 2002 PBR and Budget 2002 tables 7.1 and 7.2).

  Privately Operated Tolls
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the privately operated tolls which will be subject to VAT from 1st February. [89116]

  John Healey
  The Government is aware of 10 bridges operated by non-public bodies where the tolls will become subject to VAT from 1 February if the bodies are liable to register for VAT. These are Aldwark Bridge, Clifton Suspension Bridge, Dunham Bridge, Rixton and Warburton Bridge, Severn River Crossing, Skye Bridge, Swinford Bridge, Shrewsbury (Kingsland) Bridge, Whitchurch Bridge and Whitney on Wye Bridge.

  As I made clear in my written statement of 19 December, the Government's intention remains that tolls will not increase on account of VAT being levied from 1 February. The Department for Transport and the Scottish Executive are consulting with toll operators on the details, and suitable arrangements will be in place by 1 February.

  In addition to these, tolls levied by private landowners to cross their land will also become subject to VAT. There is no central record maintained of this type of toll.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the Written Ministerial statement of 19 December, on VAT on privately operated toll roads, how he intends to ensure that tolls will not increase on account of VAT being levied from 1st February 2003. [89398]

  John Healey
  As I made clear in my statement, the Government's intention remains that tolls will not increase on account of VAT being levied from 1 February. The Department for Transport and the Scottish Executive are consulting with toll operators on the details, and suitable arrangements will be in place by 1 February.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will define the expression 'privately operated' in relation to toll roads in his Written Ministerial Statement of 19th December. [89399]

  John Healey
  The European Court of Justice has ruled that statutory tolls levied by central and local government bodies are outside the scope of VAT, because these bodies do not engage in business activities when performing their statutory functions. The court has also ruled that tolls levied by other bodies, or levied in other circumstances, must be made subject to VAT. The term "privately operated" is a generic term, which refers to this second category of tolls.
  168W
  Mr. Chope
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his Written Ministerial Statement of 19 December, on VAT on privately operated tolls, if the Central London road user charge will bear VAT; and if he will make a statement. [89400]

  John Healey
  Provided that the Central London road user charging scheme is operated entirely by a public body and under public statute, the charges will not be liable to VAT.

  Social Exclusion
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on the use of public procurement contracts to reduce social exclusion; what plans he has to issue guidance on the subject; and if he will make a statement. [88142]

  Ruth Kelly
  Treasury officials have had discussions with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in connection with their report "Achieving Community Benefits through Contracts". As the report acknowledges, the authors' understanding of the issues surrounding the procurement policy and legal framework has been furthered by discussions with, inter alia, officials at HM Treasury and the Office of Government Commerce (OGC).

  Transaction Costs
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his Department's progress towards a reduction in transaction costs by 2004. [89272]

  Ruth Kelly
  Good progress is being made towards this target through increased use of the Government Procurement Card and more efficient systems for handling invoices.

  Website Relaunch
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the relaunch of the www.euro.gov.uk website in March 2001 cost. [89255]

  Ruth Kelly
  Details of HM Treasury expenditure on business euro preparations were included in the 'Sixth Report on Euro Preparations', published on 18 July 2002. Copies of the report were deposited in the Library of the House.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he intends to implement targets for take-up of the minimum income guarantee. [89321]

  Malcolm Wicks
  There are no plans to introduce a take up target for the Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG). However, from October 2003, the MIG will be replaced by pension credit. The Public Service Agreement (PSA) target is to be paying pension credit to at least three million households by 2006.

  ASW
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to pay funds into the pension schemes of the ASW workers at Sheerness and Cardiff. [85262]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 12 December 2002]. Ministers have met members of the ASW Action Group and their constituency MPs to discuss the Group's concerns about the Cardiff and Sheerness pension schemes. We identified a number of practical ways forward and have written to the hon. Member on a number of detailed technical pension issues on the process of winding up, and has raised the concerns of the Group as appropriate within Government.

  It was also suggested that the scheme's independent trustee might like to contact the Inland Revenue to discuss the option of members being re-introduced into the State Second Pension (formerly SERPS). It may be possible, under the 'deemed buyback' provisions contained in the Pensions Act 1995, for members to have their state scheme rights restored, thus ensuring that they receive an additional pension under the state scheme, in addition to basic state pension.

  The Government recognises that the ASW situation is extremely unfortunate, and that is why it acted quickly to put in place a range of measures through Jobcentre Plus, in conjunction with key partner organisations to help those employees being made redundant. No responsible Government could agree to be the guarantor of private pension savings. It would place huge liabiliites on tax payers some of whom will not have private savings of their own.

  The Government is concerned about schemes that wind up with insufficient assets to cover their liabilities. That is why it has set out proposals aimed at improving protection for scheme members in the pensions Green Paper 'Simplicity, security and choice: Working and saving for retirement', Cm 5677. The Green Paper includes proposals to share out scheme assets more fairly, introduce some form of insurance and strengthen protection for members whose solvent employer chooses to wind up its scheme

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many cases are being dealt with by the Child Support Agency; and how many cases were received in each of the last five years. [88156]
  170W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Murphy, dated December 2002:

  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent parliamentary questions about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from me.

  You ask how many cases are being dealt with by the Child Support Agency; and how many cases were received in each of the last five years.

  At the end of November 2002 the Agency's live and assessed case load is 1,088,920.

  The total new intake is:

  at 31 March

  1998

  581,815

  1999

  594,805

  2000

  369,226

  2001

  303,797

  2002

  365,414

  to end November 2002

  219,103

  Community Care Grant
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what is the average amount by which community care grant payments have fallen short of the amounts applied for in the last four years for which figures are available. [85159]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The discretionary Social Fund provides help with unexpected or occasional costs which vary widely in their nature and importance, to a wide range of client groups. People applying for community care grants can request any items they wish, whether or not they fall within the scope of the scheme. In deciding whether, and for what items, a grant is payable a balance has to be struck between meeting people's needs and the costs of providing that support from available resources.

  The available information is in the table. Figures for the average amount requested refer to all applications, not all of which will be successful.

  Community Care Grants

  Year

  Average amount initially requested (£)

  Average amount initially awarded (£)

  1998–99

  761

  343

  1999–2000

  772

  342

  2000–1

  794

  338

  2001–2

  833

  338

  Notes:

  For 1998–99, and part of 1999–2000, it was possible to make a dual application for both a budgeting loan and a community care grant. For these years the average amount applied for is based on community care grant applications only, while the average amount initially awarded is for both types of application. Dual applications were phased out from 5 April 1999.

  Source:

  Social Fund Policy, Budget and Management Information System.
  171W

  Housing Benefit
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much housing benefit is unclaimed so far this financial year; and what impact he expects the implementation of the Supporting People Partnership will have on reducing this figure. [89242]

  Malcolm Wicks: Estimates of unclaimed Housing Benefit for 19997/2000, the latest financial year for which information is available, are in the report "Income Related Benefits: Estimates of Take-Up 1999/2000", a copy of which is in the Library. Estimates for 2000–1 will be published in March 2003. The Supporting People programme will give local authorities a leading role in matching the provision of housing-related support services with local needs so as to give vulnerable people in the community improved choice and flexibility. Under the programme, providers of support services and local authorities will encourage people to claim the Housing Benefit to which they are entitled, if they have not already done so. However, the impact of the programme on benefit take-up will not be measurable in isolation.

  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the change in the number of occupational pension schemes since the abolition of the right for employers to make membership a condition of employment; and if he will make a statement. [89396]

  Mr. McCartney
  Provision of an occupational pension scheme is a voluntary act by the employer and changes in the numbers of occupational pensions schemes since the abolition of the right to make membership compulsory in 1988 are unlikely to be related to whether membership of any particular scheme is compulsory.

  A significant number of employees are not taking advantage of the occupational pension provision of their employers. The General Household Survey (2001) indicates that less than 70 per cent of employees whose employer provides a pension scheme actually participate in their employer's scheme. As a result, the Pensions Green Paper 'Simplicity, security and choice: working and saving for retirement' Cm 5677, suggests options for employers to be able to make membership of their occupational pension schemes a condition of employment for new employees. This could be one way of increasing the numbers of employees who are members of, and contributing to, their occupational pension scheme and may have benefits for employers in terms of recruitment and retention of staff.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of pensioner benefit units have been in receipt of income-related benefits in each of 172W
  the last five years, including the effects of the (a) guarantee and (b) savings elements of the pension credit; and what his estimate is for the proportion in the next five years. [88222]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer to the hon. member to the answer given on 6 November 2002,official Report, column 292W.

  Pensions
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the net present value is of the Government's liability for pensions to be paid to its employees in(a) the public sector as a whole and (b) in the Ministry of Defence; in each case how much of this has been funded; and whether provision has been made for it in the Government's accounts. [87759]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government Actuary's Department estimate that the unfunded public service pension scheme liabilities are approximately £380 billion as at 31 March 2002. It is not possible to separate out the liabilities relating to civil servants working for the Ministry of Defence, but the liabilities of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme covering armed forces personnel is £53.5 billion. The liabilities of the major public service schemes are reported in Resource Accounts, and from 2003–4, the liabilities of the smaller schemes will be incorporated into the balance sheets of employers who are mainly non-departmental public bodies.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what up-rating assumptions for the pension credit were used when calculating the spending on pensions as a proportion of gross domestic product outlined in the Pre-Budget document, "Long-term Public Finance Report: An Analysis of Fiscal Sustainability". [88210]

  Mr. McCartney
  Estimates of pension credit spending, included as part of total state pension spending in HM Treasury's publication, "Long-term Public Finance Report: An Analysis of Fiscal Sustainability", assumed that the savings credit threshold would be up-rated in line with increases to the basic state pension, and the guarantee credit would be up-rated by average earnings. The long-term assumption was that average real earnings would grow in line with productivity of two per cent. a year. This is one of several possible up-rating scenarios.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 26 November 2002,official Report, column 212W, which companies were registered as stakeholder pension providers on 6 April 2001; and whether any of these have stopped offering stakeholder pensions direct to individuals since then. [88221]

  Mr. McCartney
  Information available is in the table.
  173W

  Companies registered as stakeholder pension providers on 6 April 20011

  Address

  Companies since 6 April 2001 notified that they have stopped offering stakeholder pensions direct to individuals2

  Abbey National Life Plc

  Abbey National House, 287 Vincent Street, Glasgow

  Allied Dunbar Assurance Plc

  UK Life Centre, Station Road, Swindon

  AXA Sun Life Plc

  AXA Centre, PO Box 1810, Bristol

  St Andrew's Life Assurance Plc

  PO Box 10.Walton Street, Aylesbury

  De-registered3 as a stakeholder pension scheme August 2002 following parent company's (Bank of Scotland) merger with the Halifax

  B&CE Insurance Ltd

  Manor Royal, Crawley

  Brittanic Assurance Plc

  1 Wythall Green Way. Wythall, Birmingham

  Canada Life Ltd

  Canada Life Place, Potters Bar

  De-registered as a stakeholder pension scheme December 2002

  Chamber Pensions Ltd

  Manning House, 22 Carlisle Place, London

  Stopped4 July 2001

  Co-operative Insurance Society

  Miller Street, Manchester

  Clerical Medical Investment Group

  Narrow Plain, Bristol

  Deutsche Asset Management Life and Pensions Ltd

  One Appold Street, London

  Eagle Star Life Assurance Company Ltd

  UK Life Tower, Montpellier Drive, Cheltenham, Gloucester

  Friends Provident Life and Pensions Ltd

  Pixham End, Dorking, Surrey

  Stopped January 2002

  Halifax Life Ltd

  Trinity Road, Halifax, West Yorkshire

  HSBC Life (UK) Ltd

  Norwich House, Nelson Gate, Commercial Road, Southampton

  INVESCO Pensions Ltd

  INVESCO Park, INVESCO Park Drive, Henley on Thames

  Legal and General Assurance Society Ltd

  Temple Court, 11 Queen Victoria Street, London

  Marks and Spencer Life Assurance Ltd

  Kings Meadow, Chester

  Merrill Lynch Pensions Ltd

  33 King William Street, London

  Nationwide Unit Trust Managers Ltd

  Nationwide House, Pipers Way, Swindon

  National Westminster Life Assurance Ltd

  PO Box 886, Trinity Quay, Avon Street, Bristol

  National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society Ltd

  Tiddington Road, Stratford-Upon-Avon

  CGNU Life Assurance Ltd

  2 Rougier Street, York

  NPI Ltd

  Box 89, 55 Calverley Road, Tunbridge Wells

  Pearl Assurance (Unit Linked Pensions) Ltd

  Box 89, 55 Calverley Road, Tunbridge Wells

  Police Mutual Assurance Society Ltd

  Alexandra House, Queen Street, Lichfield

  The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd

  Abbey Gardens, 55 Kings Road, Reading

  Royal and Sun Alliance Life and Pensions Ltd

  St Marks Court, Chart Way, Horsham

  Royal Liver Assurance Ltd

  Royal Liver Building, Pier Head, Liverpool

  The Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Ltd

  Royal London House, Middleborough Colchester

  Royal Scottish Assurance Plc

  42 St Andrew Square, Edinburgh

  Schroder Pensions Ltd

  31 Gresham Street, London

  Scottish Amicable Life Plc

  PO Box 25, Craigforth. Stirling

  Scottish Equitable Plc

  Edinburgh Park, Edinburgh

  The Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Ltd

  Royal London House, Middleborough, Colchester

  Scottish Mutual Assurance Plc

  Abbey National House, 301 Vincent Street, Glasgow

  Scottish Widows Plc

  69 Morrison Street, Edinburgh

  FPS Stakeholder Trustee Limited

  Castle House, Park Road, Banstead

  The Standard Life Assurance Company

  Standard Life House, 30 Lothian Road, Edinburgh

  Teachers Provident Society Ltd

  Deansleigh Road, Bournemouth

  TUG Stakeholder Trustees Ltd

  Congress House, Great Russell Street, London

  Virgin Money Unit Trust Managers Ltd

  Discovery House, Whiting Road, Norwich

  Wesleyan Assurance Society

  Colmore Circus, Birmingham

  Winterthur Life UK Ltd

  Winterthur Way, Basingstoke

  1 Information from The Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority's (Opra) register of stakeholder pension schemes.

  2 Whilst registered stakeholder pension providers are required to inform Opra of any restrictions they impose on membership to their scheme, they do not have to inform the Authority of any changes to their marketing or publicity strategies.

  3 "De-registered" effectively means leaving the stakeholder pensions market altogether.

  4 "Stopped" means the provider does not accept business from individuals but does offer stakeholder pensions to group clients.

  Note:

  James Hay Trustees Ltd is not, included in the table above because it did not register until after 6 April 2001 (registered March 2002 and de-registered August 2002).
  174W

HEALTH

  Child Protection Staff (Assaults)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) social workers and (b) health visitors were assaulted in 2002 in their duties in child protection. [89344]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department does not collect statistics on violence against social workers centrally. However, it did commission a national task force on violence against social workers that reported early in 2001. The task force made a number of recommendations that were accepted by Government and social care employer organisations.

  The early targets recommended by the task force were for employers to: undertake an audit of their organisation's ability to deal with violence and abuse, do a training needs analysis for their workforce, prepare an action plan and begin to effect planned developments. The longer term target was for local authority employers to reduce incidents of violence and abuse by 25 per cent. by 2005 and the Department is working with employers to set up the means to measure their progress. The Department maintains and updates a website that was set up under the ausPlces of the task force on violence against social care. It is at www.doh.gov.uk/violenttaskforce. The Department does not collect information on reported number of violent or abusive incidents by groups of staff or by services such as child protection within the national health service. However, in June 2002 the following survey was published: "2000/2001 Reported Violent or Abusive Incidents, Accidents Involving Staff and Sickness Absence in NHS Trusts and Health Authorities in England". This survey states that there were a total of 84,273 reported violent or abusive incidents across all the staff in NHS trusts and health authorities in England in 2000–1. A copy of this report is available in the Library.

  "Changing Habits"
  John Mann
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many of the Audit Commission recommendations from their report Changing Habits, have been adopted by the Government. [82275]

  Ms Blears
  The recommendations in the Changing Habits report were very much in line with the Government's drugs policy and were therefore accepted. In fact, work on the areas highlighted in the report had been either undertaken prior to the publication of the report or was in the process of being developed.

  "Valuing People" White Paper
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress made delivering 176W
  the commitments in the White Paper 'Valuing People', published in March 2001, with particular reerence to (a) the Learning Disability and Development Fund, (b) the Implementation Support Fund, (c) the Quality Protects programme, (d) the Schools Access Initiative, (e) the Standards Fund, (f) funds invested in the development of advocacy services for people with learning disabilities, and (g) the development of a national learning disability information centre and helpline. [87379]

  Jacqui Smith
  I reported progress to the House on 1 February,official Report, column. 535 and on 26 September in my reply to the hon. Member for Daventry, official Report, column 391W. The Learning Disability Task Force, which monitors and supports implementation of the Valuing People programme, expects to publish its first annual report in January. I will be responding to that report when I publish my own report on learning disability services shortly afterwards. My report will give a full account of progress made with the delivery of Valuing People.

  We continue to make good progress. This was acknowledged by the recognition given to Valuing People in the recent Institute for Public Policy Research/Guardian Public Involvement awards.

  Accident and Emergency Services
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of minor injuries services in A and E departments are nurse-led. [87532]

  Mr. Larnmy
  Data on the proportion of minor injuries services in accident and emergency (A and E) departments that are nurse-led is not available centrally.

  The Reforming Emergency Care Strategy, launched in October 2001, introduced a new streaming system so that patients with minor injuries or illness are separated from those with more serious problems. £40 million was invested to recruit 600 additional A and E nurses to help deliver streaming in A and E departments.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the additional accident and emergency nurses announced by his Department on 23 October 2001 have been recruited; and where they are located. [87529]

  Mr. Lammy
  On 25 October 2001, the Reforming Emergency Care Strategy was announced including £40 million to fund an additional 600 accident and emergency nursing (A&E) posts.

  At 30 November 2002, 743 additional A&E nurses announced on 25 October 2001 had been recruited and 679 of these were in post.

  The location by strategic health authority (StHA) of these additional nurses is shown in the table.
  177W

  Number of these nurses in post by 30 November

  Number of these nurses appointed but not yet in post by 30 November

  DHSC

  StHA

  Whole time equivalent

  England

  679.35

  63.95

  Y21

  London

  154.9

  12

  Y22

  Midland and Eastern

  159.22

  14

  Y23

  North

  194.8

  30.35

  Y24

  South

  170.43

  7.6

  Y21

  Q04

  North West London StHA

  45

  4

  Y21

  Q05

  North Central London StHA

  25

  1

  Y21

  Q06

  North East London StHA

  35.4

  1

  Y21

  Q07

  South East London StHA

  32.5

  5

  Y21

  Q08

  South West London StHA

  17

  1

  Y22

  Q24

  Trent StHA

  26

  5

  Y22

  Q25

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland StHA

  14.06

  0

  Y22

  Q26

  Shropshire and Staffordshire StHA

  9.8

  1

  Y22

  Q27

  Birmingham and the Black Country StHA

  37

  0

  Y22

  Q28

  Coventry, Warwickshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire StHA

  16

  0

  Y22

  Q01

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire StHA

  10

  3

  Y22

  Q02

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire StHA

  27.82

  5

  Y22

  Q03

  Essex StHA

  18.54

  0

  Y23

  Q09

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear StHA

  15.9

  1.5

  Y23

  Q10

  County Durham and Tees Valley StHA

  19

  22.65

  Y23

  Q11

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire StHA

  12

  0

  Y23

  Q12

  West Yorkshire StHA

  33.2

  1.2

  Y23

  Q13

  Cumbria and Lancashire StHA

  26

  0

  Y23

  Q14

  Greater Manchester StHA

  34.75

  0

  Y23

  Q15

  Cheshire and Merseyside StHA

  40.4

  5

  Y23

  Q23

  South Yorkshire StHA

  13.55

  0

  Y24

  Q16

  Thames Valley StHA

  21.5

  0

  Y24

  Q17

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight StHA

  25.69

  2

  Y24

  Q18

  Kent and Medway StHA

  13

  0

  Y24

  QI9

  Surrey and Sussex StHA

  58.29

  1.6

  Y24

  Q20

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire StHA

  36.85

  0

  Y24

  Q21

  South West Peninsula StHA

  8.6

  1

  Y24

  Q22

  Somerset and Dorset StHA

  6.5

  3

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria are used for streaming patients on waiting lists in A&E units. [87528]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Reforming Emergency Care Strategy launched in October 2001, introduced a new streaming system in accident and emergency (A&E) departments so that patients with minor injuries or illness are separated from those with more serious problems. Each stream is seen in parallel by staff dedicated to that stream.

  Streaming patients ensures that patients with minor conditions do not wait disproportionate lengths of time whilst safeguarding immediate treatment for the more seriously ill or injured. £40 million was invested to recruit 600 additional A&E nurses to help deliver streaming in A&E departments.

  It is for clinical decision in individual A&E departments to decide which patients have minor injuries or illnesses that can be treated in a separate dedicated stream.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the additional Accident and Emergency consultants envisaged in the Government's strategy document have been recruited. [87531]
  178W
  Mr. Lammy
  The Reforming Emergency Care Strategy was launched in October 2001. It states that an additional 183 accident and emergency (A&E) consultants will be recruited by 2004, an increase of 40 per cent., as part of the planned expansion of consultant numbers in the NHS Plan.

  As at 31 March 2002, there were 486 consultants in A&E. This represents an increase of 26 per cent. since September 1997.

  Current workforce projections suggest that by March 2004, there may be sufficient trained specialists to increase numbers in A&E by around 190 over a 2,000 baseline. This takes account of expected numbers of additional recruits and numbers leaving due to retirement.

  Acute Care
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cleaning contractors have lost their contracts as a result of non-performance in acute hospitals in each of the past three years. [88764]

  Mr. Lammy
  Figures for private sector cleaning contractors who have had their contracts terminated by
  179W
  National Health Service trusts for poor performance in each of the past three years are as follows:

  In 2000—one contract terminated

  In 2001—two contracts terminated

  In 2002—six contracts terminated

  Adverse Drug Reactions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many adverse drug reactions have been reported by nurses to the electronic yellow card scheme in each of the last three months. [88246]

  Ms Blears
  The Medicines Control Agency (MCA) and Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) launched a new electronic yellow card on the 31 October 2002. To date the MCA and CSM have received four reports of suspected adverse drug reactions submitted by nurses using the electronic yellow card. Three electronic reports were received from nurses during November and one report was received during December, out of a total of 29 electronic reports.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it the policy of the Government that access to the NHS ambulance service should be available to patients travelling to private hospitals when referred by NHS GPs; and if he will make a statement. [87730]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: National health service ambulance services are available to patients travelling to private hospitals when they are receiving NHS treatment at that hospital or if they are receiving treatment at a private hospital within the trust's normal catchment area.

  Ambulance Trusts
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which ambulance trusts he and his ministerial colleagues have visited in the past year. [88161]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Ministerial Team has visited the following ambulance trusts in 2002.

  Laboratory reports of Staphylococcus aureus blood isolates with methicillin susceptibility England and Wales, 1992–2001.

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Number of Saureus blood isolates resistant to methicillin (MRSA)

  104

  187

  407

  797

  1,279

  2,290

  2,853

  3,338

  4,308

  4,904

  Percentage1 resistant to methicillin

  2

  4

  9

  14

  22

  30

  34

  37

  42

  42

  Number of Saureus blood isolates sensitive to methicillin

  4,215

  4,539

  4,300

  4,959

  4,556

  5,325

  5,433

  5,590

  5,897

  6,864

  Percentage1 sensitive to methicillin

  98

  96

  91

  86

  78

  70

  66

  63

  58

  58

  No information on methicillin susceptibility

  730

  1,015

  1,253

  831

  1,960

  1,763

  1,936

  1,896

  1,898

  1,316

  Total

  5,049

  5,741

  5,960

  6,587

  7,795

  9,378

  10,222

  10,824

  12,103

  13,084

  1 As a percentage of reports with methicillin susceptibility information.

  Note:

  Data last updated 5 June 2002 ans subject to change due to late reporting.

  Source:

  PHLS

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department collects on the number of new discoveries of antibiotics each year. [88073]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Medicines Control Agency does not monitor the number of new antibiotic discoveries that are made each year and hence is unable to provide the information requested.
  180W

  London Ambulance Trust-21 January 2002, 25 June 2002 and 4 September 2002.

  Greater Manchester Ambulance Services National Health Service Trust-24 April 2002.

  Warwickshire Ambulance Trust-26 September 2002.

  West Country Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust-14 November 2002.

  Ambulance Turnaround Times
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the ambulance turnaround times were in(a) England, (1)) each NHS region and (c) each ambulance trust in each of the last six years. [88072]

  Mr. Lammy
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many 999 calls for ambulances received a response within eight minutes in the last 12 months. [88744]

  Mr. Lammy
  The latest information available about the proportion of Category A emergency calls resulting in an ambulance arriving at the scene of the reported incident within the Government's target response times for all ambulance trusts, is contained in the Department of Health Statistical Bulletin "Ambulance Services, England 2001–2". A copy of the bulletin is in the Library and available at www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0213.htm.

  Antibiotics
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department collects on the growth in resistance of staphylococcus aureus to antibiotics. [88069]

  Ms Blears
  The Public Health Laboratory Service has a voluntary reporting system for cases of bacteraemia (blood infection). These data are known to be incomplete but are useful for tracking long term trends and the available data on staphylococcus aureus bacteraemias with their susceptibility to methicillin are shown in the table.

  Appointments
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to which bodies his Department makes appointments; how many members there are(a) in total and (b) in each body; and how many of those appointed are (i) businessmen, (ii) businessmen in SMEs and (iii) businessmen in micro-businesses. [87391]
  181W
  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office (Mr. Alexander) on 16 December 2002, official Report, volume. 396, column 607W.

  Bed Availability (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what contingency arrangements he has made to enable hospitals in Worcestershire to find sufficient beds in the event of(a) a major influenza epidemic, (b) a serious motorway accident and (c) a terrorist incident; and if he will make a statement. [88011]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: All primary care trusts and acute trusts have produced specific plans, which address any rise in activity across local health communities, including that potentially caused by influenza.

  Both motorway and terrorist incidents have been covered in Worcestershire acute hospitals national health service trusts major incident plan. Following the events of 11 September 2001, the deputy Chief Medical Officer issued specific guidance on planning for mass casualty incidents. These plans had to include robust arrangements for mutual aid across health partners. A recent audit of the primary care trust's plan by the Department commended the arrangements in place for mass casualties.

  Carers
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent measures have been introduced to support informal care by carers and other groups. [88873]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 strengthens the rights of carers to an assessment of their own needs as carers, and also gives local councils more powers to directly support carers. The carers grant for 2003–4 will be increased to £100 million to ensure that more carers are able to receive breaks. One of the major changes to this grant is that the proportion to be spent on carers services will increase from 10 per cent, to 16 per cent. From October 2002, the Department of Work and Pensions has extended the invalid care allowance to carers over 65.

  Chefs Initiative
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes to catering in acute hospitals resulted from the leading chef initiative; how many recipes developed by leading chefs for the NHS are used in the NHS; and how many hospitals use menus resulting from the leading chefs initiative. [88747]

  Mr. Lammy
  Leading chef dishes promote freshness and taste in hospitals meals and have encouraged the use of higher quality ingredients

  There are currently 201 leading chef dishes available for use in the National Health Service.

  Details regarding which of these dishes are currently in use is not collected.
  182W
  The latest information available, at June 2002, shows that 40 per cent, of acute hospitals had included three leading chef dishes in their menus.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the NHS spent on the leading chefs initiative. [88761]

  Mr. Lammy
  The leading chef dishes promote the use of fresher ingredients and reflect changes in tastes and lifestyles. Exact costs of leading chef dishes vary across the national health service, depending on locality and the methods of production.

  Information on the use of these dishes is not collected but average dish costs are no greater than that for other NHS dishes.

  Child Abuse
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ask for an urgent meeting with the Home Office regarding child protection to discuss implications of the Newham Area Child Protection Committee Report on the Ainlee Walker case. [89357]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government recognise that there is still more to be done to ensure that high standards of child protection are applied in every case. That is why it commissioned "Safeguarding Children", the Joint Chief Inspectors' report on arrangements to safeguard children. It is also why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and the Home Secretary set up the statutory Inquiry, chaired by Lord Laming, into the circumstances leading up to, and surrounding, the death of Victoria Climbie. The issues raised by Victoria's case are wide-ranging, in terms of both policy and practice. The recommendations of the Joint Chief Inspectors' report and those of the Victoria Climbie Inquiry will provide us with an authoritative basis for any reforms to child protection that may need to be made, and, if radical reform is necessary, we will implement it. In considering these reports, the Government will also consider all relevant recommendations in the Ainlee Walker/Labonte Serious Case Review report and those arising from any other serious case review reports that may be published in the near future.

  Children's Vision
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to extend entitlement to NHS vouchers to children who are prescribed coloured spectacle lenses without a power for the purpose of enabling them to read. [88579]

  Mr. Lammy
  There is currently limited evidence to suggest that the provision of tinted lenses would provide enduring benefits to a significant number of children with reading difficulties, though some children may benefit. We will, however, continue to consider the issue as evidence becomes available and any decision will be taken in collaboration with the Department for Education and Skills.

  Children in Care
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of children in care have been listed as missing since 1997. [88187]
  183W
  Jacqui Smith
  Information about the proportion of children in care listed as missing is shown in the table.

  Estimated number of looked after children who went missing from their usual place of residence at any time during the years ending March 1998 to 2001; and the proportion of all children looked after at any time—England

  Number of children missing at any time during the year

  Percentage of all children looked after at any time during the year

  1997–98

  570

  0.7

  1998–99

  550

  0.7

  1999–2000

  530

  0.6

  2000–11

  920

  1.1

  1 With effect from 1 April 2000, the definition of missing was changed from being absent for more than seven days to being absent for 24 hours or more.

  Note:

  Table excludes all children looked after under an agreed series of short-term placements.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children in local authority voluntary agency care were adopted in(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002; and what percentage these represent of the total in care. [88607]

  Jacqui Smith
  The numbers of children adopted from local authority care in England in years ending 31 March 2000, 2001 and 2002 are shown in the table.

  Information on the number of children adopted from voluntary agency care is not collected centrally. However, the actual figure is likely to be very small, as voluntary adoption agencies only place children voluntarily relinquished by their birth family to their care for the purposes of adoption.

  Children adopted from local authority care in England

  Number

  Percentage1

  2000

  2,700

  5

  2001

  3,100

  5

  2002

  3,400

  6

  1 Of all looked after children

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children in(a) local authority and (b) voluntary agency care were awaiting foster homes on 31 March in (i) 1979, (ii) 1987, (iii) 1997 and (iv) 2002. [88608]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested regarding numbers of children in local authority and voluntary agency care awaiting foster homes on 31 March 1979, 1987, 1997 and 2002 is not held centrally.

  Chiropody
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists; and what plans he has to meet the society in the near future. [87676]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: I met the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists on 1 May 2002.1 have no current plans for a further Ministerial meeting.
  184W
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the findings of the Feet First II review; and if he will make a statement. [87677]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: We have no plans at present to publish the review of 'Feet First', Since the review was undertaken our policy is now focused on patient-led National Health Service services rather than professionally-led guidance. We want to ensure that primary care trusts (PCTs) make service provision decisions on the basis of their local populations' clinical needs. The national service frameworks for older people and diabetes will help PCTs make these decisions and these have been developed with clinical input from chiropodists.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients on average were awaiting an appointment with an NHS chiropodist in England in 1997; and what the figure was at the last date for which figures are available. [87684]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: Data are not collected on numbers of patients waiting by the category of chiropody or podiatry.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he plans to review the provision of chiropody services in the NHS. [87683]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: We have no current plans to review the provision of National Health Service chiropody services.

  CJD
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the link between vCJD, BSE and rogue prions. [86763]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: Creutzfeldt Jakob disease (CJD) in humans and bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in animals are part of a group of diseases called transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) or prion diseases. The precise nature of the agent responsible for CJD is not fully understood, but the most likely theory points to an abnormal form, known as a prion, of a normal cell protein. According to the protein-only hypothesis, infectious prions are composed mainly if not entirely of the abnormal form of the prion protein, which aggregates in infected tissue.

  Post mortem examination of the brains of CJD patients and BSE animals shows the accumulation of the abnormal protein and there is a massive destruction of the brain, which shows the characteristic spongy appearance.

  Although there is no direct evidence that the BSE prion is infectious to humans, obtaining such evidence could not be justified ethically as this would require humans to be inoculated with BSE agent. A judgment on the link between BSE and vCJD inevitably depends on an assessment of a range of clinical, pathological, epidemiological and laboratory based evidence. There is now convincing evidence that the agent causing BSE is

  185W
  the cause of vCJD, although there remains uncertainty about the future number of cases and the mechanism of transmission of BSE to humans.

  Commission for Health Improvement
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what medical(a) qualifications and (b) background are required in those engaged in clinical governance reviews carried out by the Commission for Health Improvement. [88316]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Commission for Health Improvement (CHI) is responsible for improvements in quality across the national health service. CHI assess systems and processes through clinical governance reviews and comment on where and when they think the potential to deliver good care is compromised.

  Teams carrying out clinical governance reviews are multidisciplinary. Each team normally comprises: a doctor, a nurse, an NHS manager, a lay member and another clinical professional who is not a doctor or a nurse, for example a pharmacist or physiotherapist.

  The eligibility criteria for doctor reviewers is,
  "must be a registered medical practitioner Consultant/GP ideally with managerial experience at directorate, board or senior partner level".

  The backgrounds of those doctor reviewers are:

  119 from acute hospital trusts

  25 from mental health trusts

  55 from primary care trusts

  four from ambulance trusts

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance and assurances have been given to Community Health Council staff relating to the forthcoming abolition of community health councils. [87623]

  Mr. Lammy
  A human resources framework for community health council (CHC) staff is being prepared by the Department jointly with the employing strategic health authorities and the unions. This will be available early in the year. The Chief Nursing Officer has issued regular newsletters to keep CHC staff updated on developments concerning the abolition of CHCs and support for CHC staff.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has set a date for the cessation of community health councils; and if he will make a statement. [87624]

  Mr. Lammy
  We are presently considering the date for abolition of Community Health Councils. An announcement will be made early this year.

  Continuous Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether all strategic health authorities and local authorities have agreed eligibility criteria for continuous care in line with current guidance. [88708]

  Jacqui Smith
  HSC 2001/015: LAC (2001)18 issued in June 2001, asked health authorities to review their continuing care criteria to ensure that they complied 186W
  with the judgment made on national health service responsibilities in the Coughlan judgment. In addition, the new strategic health authorities were asked to agree one set of criteria across their boundaries from October 2002. The Department will be monitoring StHAs' progress on this in the New Year.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for West Chelmsford of 16 July, Ref P01012753, concerning NHS Professionals, the National Framework and anti-competitive practices. [82945]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 26 November 2002]: A reply was sent on 19 December 2002.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Eastbourne of 6 August, relating to constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Ryder. [87590]

  Jacqui Smith
  A reply was sent on 23 December 2002.

  Mr. Plckthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter sent to him by Mr. Mark Heyes, of Lathom, Lancashire, relating to Ormskirk hospital. [88055]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: The Department's Customer Services Centre, correspondence management has no record of receiving this correspondence and has requested a copy of this correspondence.

  Delayed Transfers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what conclusions his Department has reached concerning its examination of the effect of the Direction on Choice on delayed transfers. [88535]

  Jacqui Smith
  We are at present reviewing the guidance on the Direction on Choice. We intend to consult on the revised guidance in the early months of 2003.

  Departmental Christmas Cards
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many departmental Christmas cards he and his Ministers intend to send in 2002; how much these cards will cost(a) to buy, (b) to post and (c) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes; and if he will place in the Library a sample copy of the official Christmas card he has sent this year. [88103]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: 1,000 cards have been purchased at a total cost of 1,243.15. More detailed information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. All expenditure incurred in the purchase and despatch of official Christmas cards has been made in accordance with the departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in "Government Accounting".

  A sample of the official Christmas card has been placed in the Library.
  187W

  EDS Hotmail System
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he made of alternative systems prior to the decision to contract EDS to supply a hotmail system to the National Health Service; when the project to procure a hotmail system for the NHS was originally costed, and what the initial estimated cost for the system was; for what purpose the NHS is commissioning a hotmail system; and what estimate he has made of the final cost of the system. [88179]

  Mr. Lammy
  As part of a formal open competitive procurement exercise 30 expressions of interest in the national e-mail service were received; eight of these were invited to submit outline proposals based on the service specification. Five of these responded, from which the final shortlist of three was chosen and their proposals assessed in detail.

  The Outline Business Case (OBC) for the National Health Service national e-mail system was prepared in September 2001.

  The initial total cost to the NHS for the recommended option in the OBC was estimated at £148 million over five years.

  The national e-mail service is a strategic business tool for the NHS and an enabler for many of the electronic data flows which the NHS wish to implement. The service will give NHS staff a single e-mail address that can be securely accessed from within the NHS network as well as from the Internet. This will be particularly useful to NHS staff based in more than one organisation or who require mobile working in the community. Staff will also be able to access their e-mails via portable devices such as mobile phones or personal digital assistants as well as from home.

  The contract was let for a period of 10 years after negotiation with EDS for a cost of £9 million with an option to terminate after five years.

  Number of emergency psychiatric re-admissions of patients aged 16–64 within 90 days of discharge from the care of a psychiatric specialist as a percentage of such discharges

  1997–98 total1

  1998–99 total1

  1999–2000 total1

  2000–1 total1

  2001–02 total2

  Number of re-admissions within 90 days

  16,384

  15,461

  14,875

  14,068

  13,306

  Total number of discharges

  114,946

  113,585

  114,616

  110,312

  104,367

  Re-admission rate (percentage)

  14.3

  13.6

  13.0

  12.8

  12.7

  Source:

  1 Common Information Core, now known as the 2 Service and Financial Framework Return (SaFFR), end of financial year forecast outturn (FOT) position, apart from 1997–98 where only activity for each quarter was collected, so figures represent the sum of all four quarters.

  Feeding Patients (Guidance)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance nursing staff in acute hospitals receive about feeding patients unable to feed themselves; and how many complaints the NHS has received in the past 12 months about patients being left to feed themselves and being unable to do so. [88759]

  Mr. Lammy
  'The Essence of Care', a tool to promote best practice in eight fundamental aspects of patient care, including food and nutrition, was published by the

  Electronic patient Records
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when Department plans to issue initial application for tenders to supply the NHS with smart card technology for personal medical records. [88757]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department has no current plans to invite tenders for smart card technology for personal medical records.

  The Department is considering the role smart card and other technologies will play in allowing patients easier access to their health records in the context of the integrated care records services programme.

  Emergency Admissions
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of admissions to accident and emergency units have to wait more than four hours for treatment. [88742]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department collects and publishes information quarterly on total time in accident and emergency and waits for admission to a bed via A&E. The data for the period July-September 2002 were published on 20 December 2002 and are available from www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity.

  The published data show that between July and September 77 per cent. of patients spent four hours or less in A&E from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge. In the same period 90 per cent. of patients admitted as emergencies via A&E were found a bed within four hours of a decision to admit.

  Emergency Readmissions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the number and (b) the rate of emergency psychiatric readmissions in each of the last five years. [88806]

  Jacqui Smith
  The number and rate of emergency psychiatric re-admissions in each of the last five years are shown in the following table.

  Department of Health in February 2001. It comprises best practice benchmarks to be used as a tool to help improve the quality of care provided, and includes a standard concerned with assisting patients to eat and drink.

  Data on the number of National Health Service complaints made each year is set out in the Department of Health publication 'Handling complaints: monitoring the NHS complaints procedures.' Due to the diverse range of issues for which complaints may be made under

  189W
  the NHS complaints procedures, it is not possible to provide information on the number of complaints requested.

  Five-a-day Initiative
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much it has cost to introduce the five-a-day nutritional logo; and which outside bodies were involved in the creative process. [86372]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: The logo is due to be introduced to consumers in Spring 2003. The creative work to develop the logo cost £40,000 and was carried out by Identica.

  The logo has been developed through extensive research and consultation with the food industry, consumers, and health, education and voluntary organisations. This work has also contributed to the development of the five-a-day programme as a whole, to improve awareness of and access to fruit and vegetables. The research and consultation has cost £50,000.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent advice he has received from the Food Standards Agency on the safety of eating meat from animals which have been vaccinated against foot and mouth disease. [88994]

  Ms Blears
  The Food Standards Agency has advised that there are no health concerns for consumers from eating meat, milk or other produce from animals vaccinated with any of the foot and mouth disease vaccines that are being considered for possible future use in the United Kingdom. The vaccine does not contain live virus and hence is not infectious. All of the other ingredients in the vaccine are commonly used substances that are known to be safe.

  Frozen Embryos
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to give women greater rights in respect of the use of their frozen embryos; and if he will make a statement. [83563]

  Ms Blears
  The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 provides that the consent of both the man and woman whose gametes are used to create an embryo through in vitro fertilisation is needed for the storage and use of the embryo. This recognises the interest that both parties have in the embryo. The Government have no plans to change this.

  Genetic Lifestyle Tests
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the sale of genetic lifestyle tests by private companies in the UK; and what his policy is on the sale of self-administered osteoporosis testing kits. [87526]

  Ms Blears
  The Department has published two voluntary codes of practice and guidance for genetic tests being sold directly to the public. These set out broad requirements in areas such as: peer-reviewed 190W
  evidence of value, accreditation and quality assurance in testing laboratories, consent, confidentiality, sample and information storage, and customer information.

  The Human Genetics Commission is conducting a review of genetic testing services supplied direct to the public and plans to publish its report and recommendations to Ministers early in 2003.

  Anyone concerned about the risk of osteoporosis should seek advice from his or her general practitioner. Those at high risk of developing this disease can be easily identified and offered appropriate treatment. Others can be given simple lifestyle advice about prevention.

  In vitro diagnostic medical devices such as osteoporosis testing kits are regulated by the In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices (IVD) Directive (98/79/EC) which has been transposed into United Kingdom law by Medical Devices Regulation (SI2002 No 618).

  Health Protection Agency
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the future of the Public Health Laboratory Service; [86029]

  (2) what his policy is on the future of the National Radiological Protection Board. [86027]

  Ms Blears
  The Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) and the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) are both affected by our proposals to create a unified Health Protection Agency (HPA) which will be able to provide more effective support for health protection and health emergency planning.

  Having considered responses to "Health Protection: A Consultation Document on Creating a Health Protection Agency", published in June 2002, we aim to establish the HPA as a non-departmental public body from 1 April 2004, subject to legislative time being available. At that stage, the agency would take responsibility for most of the functions currently performed by the NRPB.

  As an interim step towards this, we intend to establish a special health authority, also to be called the Health Protection Agency, from 1 April 2003. This special health authority would be responsible for functions under the NHS Act which are to be given to the new agency.

  On these proposals, the NRPB would, on the establishment of the HPA as a non-departmental public body, become a body with responsibilities to the Scottish Executive only. The Scottish Executive is currently consulting on future health protection arrangements in Scotland.

  The PHLS would remain in existence until primary legislation is changed. From 1 April 2003, we intend that it will be responsible for the production of media for microbiology laboratories, following the transfer of its other current functions to the proposed new special health authority and other national health service bodies in England and Wales.
  191W
  Copies of letters of 15 November 2002 to the chairs of the NRPB, the PHLS Board and the Microbiological Research Authority, which provide further details, have been placed in the Library.

  Herbal Medicines Directive
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what level of fees the Medicines Control Agency will charge under the proposed Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive for considering applications for the registration of herbal medicines under the terms of the directive; [88688]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the compliance costs in terms of registration charges, documentation, storage costs and analysis for companies seeking a full pharmaceutical licence for a herbal product under the proposed Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive. [88689]

  Ms Blears
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 5 December 2002,official Report, column 966W.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of how the pharmaceutical production and testing standards for products under the draft Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive will affect the commercial value of the products on the UK market, with special reference to those produced by smaller specialist companies and distributed through specialist retailers. [88690]

  (2) what assessment he has made of how the fees charged by the Medicines Control Agency for considering applications for the registration of herbal products under the terms of the proposed Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive will affect the commercial value of the products on the UK market, with particular reference to those produced by smaller specialist companies and distributed through specialist retailers. [88691]

  Ms Blears
  Existing regulatory arrangements do not allow the public readily to distinguish which unlicensed herbal remedies on the United Kingdom market are made to acceptable standards. There is continuing evidence of an international trade in herbal remedies made to unreliable standards. Currently, the commercial value of herbal remedies made to good quality standards, as well as public health, can be compromised by products made to low standards.

  The requirements of the proposed Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products should mean that the public will have access to a wide range of herbal remedies made to assured the requirements of the proposed Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products should mean that the public will have access to a wide range of herbal remedies made to assured standards of safety, quality and product information. Many in the herbal sector share our view that this could lead to increased public confidence in herbal medicines, and lead to greater stability for business.
  192W
  In continuing detailed discussions with industry about the Directive the Medicines Control Agency will continue to pay close attention to issues of regulatory impact which are of specific concern to small business.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what effect the proposed Traditional Herbal Products Directive will have on the choice of herbal products available to the consumer. [88692]

  Ms Blears
  Our expectation is that, subject to the successful outcome of negotiations on the proposed Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products, the customer will have access to a wide range of traditional herbal remedies made to assured standards of safety and quality and with systematic information about the safe usage of the product.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what opportunities exist for new herbal products under the proposed Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive; [88694]

  (2) how many routes to the market will be allowed by the proposed Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive for herbal remedies other than by obtaining a full pharmaceutical licence. [88686]

  Ms Blears
  Under the proposed Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products, non active ingredients within the traditional herbal remedy, need not have traditional usage. The possibility of permitting the inclusion of nutrients with traditional herbal remedies is currently under consideration in European negotiations on the Directive.

  Where non industrially produced unlicensed herbal remedies are supplied following one to one consultation in accordance with the terms of s12(1) of the Medicines Act 1968 there is no requirement to demonstrate traditional usage of the remedy.

  Home Aids
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average waiting time and how many people are currently waiting for(a) assessment and (b) delivery and installation of home aids and adaptations by (i) Staffordshire, (ii) Cheshire, (iii) Derbyshire, (iv) Hertfordshire, (v) Lancashire, (vi) Lincolnshire, (vii) Leicestershire, (viii) Shropshire, (ix) Oxfordshire and (x) Northamptonshire social services department. [80496]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information is not collected centrally on the number of people waiting for assessment or delivery and installation of home aids and adaptations.

  Information was collected for the first time on waiting times on the Referrals, Assessments and Packages of Care (RAP) return in 2000–1. Data is collected on the time waited from:

  (i) first contact to completed assessment;

  (ii) first contact to first service;

  (iii) first contact to provision or commission of all specified services in the care plan, where specified services excludes home aids and adaptations.

  Seven of the authorities listed in the question did not submit any data for these items in 2000–01.
  193W
  For the authorities that did provide data on waiting times to first service, no information is available specifically on home aids and adaptations. Table 1 shows the actual length of time from first contact to first service for new clients in England for 2000–01. Data for 2001–2 will be available in February 2003.

  Table 1 Actual length of time from first contact to first service for new clients

  England, 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  Rounded numbers

  Actual length of time from first contact to first service

  All client groups

  115,000

  Contact day or the following day

  20,000

  More than day following contact day up to

  21,000

  1 week

  More than 1 week up to 2 weeks

  15,000

  More than 2 weeks up to 6 weeks

  28,000

  More than 6 weeks up to 12 weeks

  14,000

  More than 12 weeks up to 6 months

  9,400

  More than 6 months

  7,400

  Actual figures for 52 Las

  The information centrally available on delivery times is provided in the table 2.

  Table 2—Performance Assessment Framework Indicator D38: Percentage of equipment items costing less than 1,000 delivered within 3 weeks in 2001–2

  Local Authority

  Percentage of items of equipment costing less than £1,000 delivered within 3 weeks

  Cheshire

  98

  Derbyshire

  99

  Hertfordshire

  83

  Lancashire

  91

  Leicestershire

  94

  Lincolnshire

  89

  Northamptonshire

  93

  Oxfordshire

  97

  Shropshire

  91

  Staffordshire

  83

  The NHS Plan set targets for the integration of social services and health community equipment services and to increase the number of people benefiting from them by fifty per cent, both by 2004. Additionally. on 23 July 2002, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health made a statement to the House concerning services for older people. He announced that by December 2004 all items of community equipment will be delivered within seven working days. This target will also apply to minor adaptations made by community equipment services. New indicators will be introduced to monitor these targets.

  Homeless Children
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the Treasury to seek new funding directly to meet the support needs of homeless children to ensure that their education is not adversely affected. [88544]

  Jacqui Smith
  The resource requirements of children's social services were considered with the Spending Review 2002 and taken account of in the settlement. Most of the resources available to local authorities are 194W
  not earmarked and it is for each local authority to decide how much to spend in the light of local priorities on the support needs of homeless children.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the health effects of homelessness; and what progress has been made to improve health care for homeless people following publication of the homelessness directorate's document, "More than a Roof?. [86251]

  Ms Blears
  The health needs of homeless people have been assessed in various studies, including the Acheson inquiry into inequalities in health and the homelessness directorate's strategy, "More than a Roof?. "More than a Roof? set out a new approach to tackling homelessness, focused on the problems homeless people face as much as on places where they live. It identified addressing health needs as critical to helping homeless people, as well as in preventing homelessness.

  Homeless people will have benefited particularly from measures to improve access to health care, such as the more than 1,300 personal medical service pilots and 42 national health service walk-in centres which this Government have introduced. They have been identified as a priority for cross-Government action in the "Cross-cutting Review on Health Inequalities", published on 20 November 2002.

  Horton Hospital (Land Sales)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that the increase in land values in Epsom does not prevent the sale of land at Horton Hospital to Rosebery Housing Association and other bodies which are subject to Housing Corporation rules and formulae on the acquisition of land by such associations. [88333]

  Ms Blears
  In accordance with the planning consent, land at Horton allocated for affordable housing is to be sold to housing associations at 40 per cent. of the open market value, representing a significant discount, and a reduced receipt for reinvestment in the national health service. The Department will comply with this requirement, but has no involvement in the housing association's funding arrangements.

  HosPlces
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will reimburse(a) in full and (b) in part the costs to the hosPlce movement of the impact of the increase in contributions to the NHS superannuation scheme; [88574]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the impact the increase in the NHS superannuation scheme will have on hosPlces. [88576]

  Ms Blears
  Technical changes to the way the national health service pension scheme is funded were included in my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor's pre-Budget report on 27 November 2002. In future, employer contributions will include the cost of indexing scheme benefits but the arrangements will be phased in, with employers charged directly from April 2004.
  195W
  The extra employer costs will be offset by additional health service funding. A departmental working group has been set up to develop detailed implementation plans and the position of hosPlces and other voluntary sector employers, who contribute to the scheme, will be fully considered.

  Hospital Cleanliness
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints the NHS has received in the past 12 months about standards of cleanliness in acute hospitals. [88763]

  Mr. Lammy
  Data on the number of National Health Service complaints made each year is set out in the Department of Health publication "Handling complaints: monitoring the NHS complaints procedures." Due to the diverse range of issues for which complaints may be made under the NHS complaints procedures it is not possible to provide the information requested.

  Hospital Infections
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will next publish figures on the level of deaths in British hospitals from infections resulting from hospital treatment. [88180]

  Ms Blears
  There are no centrally held statistics on the number of deaths caused by hospital acquired infections. The recent paper on deaths associated with methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus(MRSA) was a research study and not a routine publication.

  The Department does publish data on MRSA bacteraemia for acute National Health Service hospital trusts in England. Results for the first year of this scheme, from April 2001 to March 2002, were published in the Communicable Disease Report Weekly of 20 June 2002 and are available on the Public Health Laboratory Service website at www.phls.co.uk/publications/cdr/PDFfiles/2002/cdr2502.pdf

  Legal Disputes
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been required to pay cash to the health authority where a legal case for damages against a health authority has been lost or withdrawn, and which health authorities have been involved, in each of the last 10 years. [88302]

  Mr. Lammy
  Information on the amount of any money received by health authorities from people required to pay in lost or withdrawn cases of damages is not collected at the required level of detail by the Department.

  Numbers of people involved would not be collected in any of the returns received by the Department.

  Licence Fees
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health with reference to his Department's answer to honourable Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme of 7 November, what mechanisms his Department uses to review the(a) effectiveness and efficiency of social
  196W
  service departments, (b) the adequacy of resource allocation to social service departments and (c) the meeting of local needs by social services, with special reference to community care for the elderly; and what statistics on (i) average assessment times and (ii) waiting lists for home aids and adaptations he collates in England. [80495]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has the following monitoring mechanisms in place:(a) The overall performance of each council is assessed by the Social Services Inspectorate (SSI) each year, using a range of evidence from performance indicators, inspections and twice-yearly monitoring information. This assessment incorporates evidence on effectiveness and efficiency. A summary of the performance is published as a performance star rating, ranging from zero to three stars. The most recent star ratings were published on 15 November 2002. A more detailed summary of performance is contained in a performance letter written by the SSI to each council. These are published on the Department's website, at www.doh.gov.uk/pssratings/councilsbylist.htm.
  (b) It is the responsibility of each individual council to decide what resources to allocate to social services. Most of local government resources are not earmarked by central government. The exception is ring-fenced grants, which have to be spent in accordance with grant conditions; this is a relatively small proportion and will decrease further in future years.
  (c) As in the answer to (a) the SSI assess the performance of councils, and this includes an assessment of community care services for older people.

  The Department collects the following information:
  (i) Detailed information on the waiting times for clients receiving an assessment for a care package is published in table A7.1 of the referrals, assessments and packages of care (RAP) report for 2000–1. The publication for 2000–1 is available on the Department's website at www.doh.qov.uk/rap.htm. Corresponding data for 2001–2 will be published early in 2003. One performance indicator on waiting times for care packages has been published for 2001–2 in Social Services performance assessment framework indicators for 2001–2, available at www.doh.gov.uk/paf (indicator D43).
  (ii) Information is not centrally collected on waiting lists for home aids and adaptations.

  Looked-after Children
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many looked after children there were in each of the last five years. [88514]

  Jacqui Smith
  The number of looked after children for each of the last five years is shown in the table.

  Number of children looked after at 31 March, 1998–2002—England

  Year

  Number

  1998

  53,300

  1999

  55,500

  2000

  58,100

  2001

  58,900

  2002

  59,700

  Note:

  Table excludes children being looked after under any agreed series of short term placements.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many looked after children were convicted of criminal acts in each of the last five years. [88515]
  197W
  Jacqui Smith
  Figures identifying the numbers of looked after children who have been looked after for at least a year and have been cautioned or convicted in the year have only been collected since the year 2000. The figures are shown in the table.

  Offending by looked after children, 12 months ending 30 September 2000 and 2001: England

  Number

  2000

  2001

  Number of children looked after for at least 12 months, aged 10 or older at 30 September

  25,700

  27,000

  of which:

  Number cautioned or convicted during the year

  2,800

  2,800

  Laming Report
  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when Lord Laming will publish his report on the Victoria Climbie inquiry. [88345]

  Jacqui Smith
  Lord Laming has handed his report into the death of Victoria Climbie to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Health and the Minister for Children and Young People, on 6 January. The report will be published shortly.

  Medical Devices
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken with the Medical Devices Agency to improve public confidence in the effectiveness and reliability of self-testing diagnostic medical devices. [88529]

  Mr. Lammy
  The United Kingdom was one of a small number of European Community member states that transposed the in vitro diagnostic (IVD) directive into national law by the required deadline (June 2000). All IVD manufacturers placing products on the European market will be required to meet this legislation by December 2003.

  Public confidence in the reliability and effectiveness of self-testing diagnostic medical devices will be improved when the IVD regulations come fully into force, and evidence is provided by the manufacturers that the results provided are accurate and meaningful.

  In order to learn about concerns that the public might have with medical devices, the Medical Devices Agency introduced, in September 2001, "on-line" reporting for members of the public for all medical devices, including in vitro diagnostic medical devices.

  In addition, the Department has published two voluntary codes of practice and guidance for genetic tests being sold directly to the public. These set out broad requirements in areas such as peer-reviewed evidence of value, accreditation and quality assurance in testing laboratories, consent, confidentiality, sample and information storage, and customer information.

  Mental Health
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost of treatment with drugs 198W
  for child and adolescent mental health patients (a) since 1 January and (b) in each of the previous five years. [88527]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information is not collected centrally in the form requested.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his assessment is of the adequacy of mental health provision in Leeds West; and if he will make a statement. [81492]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Leeds West Primary Care Trust (PCT) remains committed to the provision of high quality mental health services, which are easily accessible. A working group, which has representation from the PCT and the voluntary sector, as well as service users, has been formed to help determine the options for closer working and service improvements across the community.

  Secondary care mental health services will also be further enhanced following the opening of a new community unit for older people in 2003.

  The West Yorkshire Strategic Health Authority is responsible for overseeing the local modernisation of mental health services in line with the National Service Framework and the NHS Plan. Strategic health authorities will be clarifying through their local delivery plans, to be completed by March 2003, how mental health services should be developed over the next three years to help meet the needs of the local population.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of carers of mental health patients in Shropshire have been given a carer's assessment. [87419]

  Mr. Lammy
  27 per cent. of carers of mental health patients in the Shropshire Primary Care Trust area have been offered an assessment to date in 2002–3.

  Source:

  Shropshire PCT

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the underlying reasons for the recent change in numbers of prisoners transferred under the Mental Health Act 1999 from prisons to hospitals. [87440]

  Jacqui Smith
  The "Statistics of Mentally Disordered Offenders 2001", published on 28 November 2001, shows that the number of prisoners being transferred to hospital on mental health grounds has reduced in 2000 and 2001, compared to 1999. It is too early to begin to say what the causes might be. The past three years represent a period of considerable change for prison health, and for mental health in particular, with the development of mental health in-reach to prisons from the national health service. These changes need more time to work through before we can assess their effects with any certainty.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is putting in place to ensure that users of mental health services are treated in a respectful manner. [88198]
  199W
  Jacqui Smith
  Empowering patients to take an active role in their own care is a key theme in the NHS Plan. We know that people are more likely to have a better outcome from treatment when they understand and agree with their treatment and have been active partners in decision making. Increasing the involvement of service users and carers in all aspects of service development and delivery will help to increase their status and the respect they are afforded by all those involved.

  A number of programmes of work attest to the importance of this. For example the mental health stigma campaign Mind out for mental health and National Institute of Mental Health England's Experts by experience programme.

  Mental health performance indicators for 2002–3 include indicators on patient focus. There is a specific indicator on 'Privacy and dignity', with objectives set to support the elimination of mixed sex accommodation in general wards.

  The mental health patient survey, which is being carried out by the Commission for Health Improvement, is timed to provide data for the performance rating of mental health trusts in 2002–3. It will provide information to trusts to enable them to offer mental health patients better information and more choice.

  Ministerial Correspondence
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many letters to him from(a) hon. Members and (b) members of the public remain unanswered, broken down by those which are (i) over six months, and (ii) over one year. [83279]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 25 November 2002; pursuant to his answer, 17 December 2002, official Report, c. 783 W]: I regret my previous answer was incorrect. The first sentence should read as follows:

  "At 11 December there were 38 letters from hon. Members dated before 10 June which had not received a reply and none over a year."

  MMR Vaccine
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will lift the limit on the daily quota for vaccine for the single MMR injection. [87165]

  Ms Blear
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: Single measles and single mumps vaccines, which are prescribed and administered outside the national childhood immunisation programme, are imported unlicensed medicines. Licensed single rubella vaccine is currently available in the United Kingdom. Unlicensed single rubella vaccine may only be imported and supplied when the licensed vaccine is unavailable. Importers, who must be licensed by the Medicines Control Agency, are required to notify the Agency on each occasion that they intend to import an unlicensed medicine. Notifications may be submitted daily, but the maximum quantity that may be imported per notification is controlled by legislation.
  200W

  Monitored Dosage Systems
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to keep the use of monitored dosage systems for elderly patients free at the point of demand; and if he will make a statement. [87429]

  Mr. Lammy
  Under their national health service terms of service, pharmacies are not required to provide monitored dosage systems. Primary care trusts can negotiate contracts with pharmacies to pay for the provision of monitored dosage systems where they consider it appropriate to meet the needs of patients locally.

  NHS Catering
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the NHS takes to provide varied meal options in hospitals for patients from different ethnic backgrounds. [88765]

  Mr. Lammy
  Each hospital's menu should reflect the needs and preferences of all patients although the range of choice available will depend on the diversity of the local population. The new national health service menu format, launched in May 2001, includes a section for "Cultural and Religious Choices" which sets out example menus for halal, vegetarian, kosher and African-Caribbean meals.

  During 2003, NHS Estates will be working with the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency to tender for a national contract for supplying the NHS with halal, kosher and other authentic ethnic dishes.

  NHS Cleaning Contractors
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS cleaning contractors have lost their contracts in each of the past five years. [85776]

  Ms Blears
  Figures for private sector cleaning contractors who have had their contracts terminated by national health service trusts for poor performance in each of the last five years are as follows:

  1998—one contract terminated

  1999—one contract terminated

  2000—one contract terminated

  2001—two contracts terminated

  2002—six contracts terminated

  NHS Dentistry
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to encourage recruitment of NHS dentists. [87721]

  Mr. Lammy
  The number of dentists practising in the general dental service has risen consistently in recent years. Most of these dentists spend most of their time on national health service work. However, access to routine NHS dentistry can be an issue in some parts of the country.

  A number of initiatives have been implemented to address this shortfall. New ways of working and new ways of paying dentists will be explored in the Options for Change field sites, which have been identified by the NHS Modernisation Agency, working closely with the

  201W
  profession. The learning gained from these field sites will be used to inform future changes to NHS dentistry as a whole.

  The report "Better Opportunities for Women Dentists" reflects changes in the work force and aims to make NHS dentistry a more attractive profession for women.

  Doctors' and Dentists' review body recommendations on increases to gross fees have been implemented in full since 1999.

  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists are accepting NHS patients in(a) Morecambe, (b) Lancaster and (c) Carnforth. [87722]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information asked for is not collected centrally in the format requested.

  The number of practices taking on new patients in the Morecambe Bay Primary Care Trust (PCT) was, estimated at August 2002, 29 out of 57 practices or 51 per cent. The average for England is 45 per cent. However, 98 per cent. of the PCTs population was within a five mile (urban) and 10 mile (rural) radius of dentists accepting new patients.

  NHS IT Programme
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average time taken between the initial advertising of NHS IT contracts with a value of more than £5 million and the final contract award has been in the last month. [88178]

  Ms Blears
  No national health service information technology contracts with a value of more than £5 million have been awarded in the last month.

  The Department, at the centre, only approves NHS information management and technology business cases that exceed £20 million whole life cost. The remaining cases are dealt with at various intermediate levels in the NHS; previously by regional offices and now strategic health authorities. We do not maintain a central list of cases approved in the NHS.

  Because of their complexity projects of this size normally take over a year to complete.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has issued basic standards and specifications as part of the NHS IT programme. [88164]

  Ms Blears
  Information standards for use by the national health service in England are maintained and published by the NHS information authority.

  As part of the implementation programme for NHS information technology currently going forward within the Government's "21st Century IT" strategy, a national specification for the integrated care records service element was published for consultation on 26 July 2002.
  202W
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what testing has been carried out on the procurement model for the NHS IT programme. [88165]

  Mr. Lammy
  Thee procurement strategy for the national programme for information technology in the National Health Service will be in line with European Union Official Journal of the European Communities (OJEC) regulations and procedures and also covered by the Government Procurement Agreement (GPA).

  The purpose of the procurement strategy is to simplify the contracting environment for NHS IT projects by reducing the duplication and delay that can be the result of running numerous local procurement exercises in parallel.

  The national programme and its key deliverables are subject to the Office of Government Commerce Gateway Review process. They will examine the procurement strategy and provide assurance that the selected procurement approach is appropriate for the proposed programme and in line with good practice.

  The national IT programme has also appointed commercial lawyers, DLA and Alien & Overy, to provide legal advice and support.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which IT projects being undertaken by the NHS(a) are running over budget and (b) have been subject to a significant respecification. [88167]

  Ms Blears
  The Department does not keep central records of local information management and technology projects. Projects are managed by the local National Health Service organisation under the relevant standing financial instructions. There is no general requirement to report cost over-runs or re-specifications to the Department.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the implications of a moratorium in localized IT purchasing by the NHS for the viability of smaller suppliers. [88168]

  Ms Blears
  There is no moratorium on localised information technology purchasing by the National Health Service.

  The new national programme for IT in the NHS was announced by my noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, on 12 June 2002. We are planning significant increases in expenditure from April 2003 onwards in the NHS following the recommendations of the Wanless Report. The final details of the new funding in the 2002 Spending Review are still being worked on and an announcement will be made shortly.

  The Department has issued a prior information notice (PIN), a tender notice that is published as part of the Official Journal of the European Communities (OJEC) series. The PIN invites interested parties to respond to fulfilling the role of prime contractors and suppliers in the delivery of the national IT programme.
  203W
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress in implementing the NHS National IT Strategy. [88166]

  Mr. Lammy
  The national programme for information technology in the national health service focuses on the key developments that will make a significant difference to improving the patient experience and the delivery of care and services. There are four key deliverables: electronic appointment booking, an electronic care records service, an electronic prescribing service and an underpinning IT infrastructure with sufficient capacity to support the critical national applications and local systems.

  To support better central direction a ministerial task force has been established under the chairmanship of my noble friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. Each strategic health authority has appointed a chief information officer. They have a pivotal role in including costed IT plans in their local delivery plans and ensuring primary care trusts and NHS trusts implement and use the core IT solutions determined at national level.

  Since Richard Granger took up the post of Director General of NHS IT on 7 October there has been a great deal of progress and accelerating the mobilisation of the national programme has been a priority.

  A significant step forward has been the issue of a prior information notice (PIN), a tender notice that is published as part of the Official Journal of the European Communities (OJEC) series. The PIN invites interested parties to respond to fulfilling the role of prime contractors and suppliers in the delivery of the national IT programme.

  The focus in the early part of the year will remain on strengthening programme management, including risk management and progress monitoring, ensuring faster and smarter procurement and providing a clear and meaningful critical path for implementation.

  NHS Net
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of(a) GP surgeries and (1)) other surgeries were connected to NHS net in each of the last four years. [86879]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 12 December 2002]: Figures held centrally for general practitioner practice connections are shown in the table. These are for centrally funded connections; connections for other GP premises such as part-time surgeries are a matter for local arrangements.

  Date

  Number of practices

  Percentage

  April 1999

  75

  0.9

  April 2000

  4,611

  53

  April 2001

  8,125

  93

  Currently

  8,579

  98

  204W

  NHS Targets
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list targets set by his Department in 2002 for the NHS in the last year. [89031]

  Mr. Lammy
  The key publication setting out priorities for the national health service in 2002–3 was the "Planning and Priorities Framework 2002". A copy is available in the Library.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to reply to written questions refs. 80495 and 80496 tabled by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme on 13 November 2002. [88616]

  Jacqui Smith
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to these questions. They have been answered today.

  Patient Admissions
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received from(a) ambulance unions and (b) other representatives of ambulance workers about delays in the admission of patients from ambulances into A&E units. [88160]

  Mr. Lammy
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 10 December 2002,official Report, column 293W.

  Physical Health of Prisoners
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the prison population are(a) smokers and (b) overweight. [87443]

  Jacqui Smith
  A study of the physical health of sentenced male prisoners was undertaken in 1994. It showed that 81 per cent. of sentenced male prisoners smoked and 30 per cent. were overweight. This is still considered to be representative of the current prison population

  Primary Care Trusts
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the progress made by primary care trusts in carrying out their roles; and if he will make a statement; [88099]

  (2) whether his Department has carried out research into the effectiveness of primary care trusts in carrying out their roles. [88100]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answers 19 December 2002.1 In April 1999 the Department commissioned the national primary care research and development centre (NPCRDC) at Manchester University and the King's Fund to undertake a longitudinal survey (the Tracker Survey), of a representative sample of primary care groups and trusts over their first three years of development.

  The research has concluded that primary care groups and trusts have continued to build on their early achievements in establishing infrastructures and their capacity to improve services. They have continued to improve access to care, extend the range of services

  205W
  available in primary care settings and raise quality standards. The reports are available on the NPCRDC website at: www.nperdc.man.ac.uk

  The national primary and care trust development programme (NatPaCT) has also been working with primary care trusts (PCTs) to develop a competency framework as a self-assessment tool to help PCTs assess their organisational competence to deliver the National Health Service agenda. It provides guidance on organisational and personal competencies. The NatPaCT programme and competency framework has been made available to all PCTs and can also be downloaded from the NatPaCT website at: www.natpact.nhs.uk

  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the Diabetes National Service Framework Delivery Strategy before primary care trusts plan their expenditure for future years. [88849]

  Mr. Lammy
  We shall be publishing the delivery strategy for the diabetes national service framework in the next few weeks.

  Prisons (Mental Health)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prisoners with mental health problems there were awaiting transfer to secure hospitals in each prison in each year since 1997. [87416]

  Jacqui Smith
  The table shows data from prisons on numbers of prisoners who were waiting for mental health transfer in each prison on the last day of each calendar year since 2000. Earlier figures collected are either incomplete or cannot be verified, and so are not included here.

  As at December

  Prison

  2001

  2000

  Acklington

  1

  0

  Albany

  2

  4

  Altcourse

  3

  0

  Ashreld

  0

  1—

  Ashwell

  0

  0

  Askham Grange

  0

  0

  Aylesbury

  0

  0

  Bedford

  1

  2

  Belmarsh

  17

  6

  Birmingham

  4

  1

  Blakenhurst

  1

  0

  Blantyre House

  0

  0

  Blundeston

  0

  0

  Brinsford

  2

  2

  Bristol

  2

  1

  Brixton

  4

  7

  Brockhill

  1

  0

  Buckley Hall

  0

  0

  Bullingdon

  0

  1

  Bullwood Hall

  0

  0

  Camp Hill

  0

  1

  Canterbury

  3

  0

  Cardiff

  1

  2

  Castington

  0

  0

  Channings Wood

  0

  0

  Chelmsford

  1

  2

  Coldingley

  0

  0

  Cookham Wood

  0

  0

  Dartmoor

  0

  2

  Deerbolt

  0

  0

  Doncaster

  3

  3

  206W

  As at December

  Prison

  2001

  2000

  Dorchester

  0

  0

  Dover

  0

  0

  Dovegate

  0

  1—

  Downview

  0

  0

  Drake Hall

  0

  0

  Durham

  1

  2

  East Sutton Park

  0

  0

  Eastwood Park

  2

  1

  Elmley

  1

  0

  Erlestoke

  0

  0

  Everthorpe

  0

  0

  Exeter

  0

  15

  Featherstone

  1

  0

  Feltham

  2

  5

  Ford

  0

  0

  Forest Bank

  0

  0

  Foston Hall

  0

  0

  Frankland

  1

  0

  Full Sutton

  0

  0

  Garth

  0

  0

  Gartree

  4

  3

  Glen Parva

  0

  0

  Gloucester

  0

  0

  Grendon/Spring Hill

  0

  0

  Guys Marsh

  1

  0

  Haslar

  0

  0

  Hatfield

  0

  0

  Haverigg

  0

  0

  Hewell Grange

  0

  0

  Highdown

  2

  3

  Highpoint

  0

  0

  Highpoint North

  1

  0

  Hindley

  0

  0

  Hollesley Bay

  0

  0

  Holloway

  1

  0

  Holme House

  0

  0

  Hull

  0

  0

  Huntercombe

  0

  0

  Kingston

  1

  1

  Kirkham

  0

  0

  Kirklevington

  0

  0

  Lancaster

  0

  0

  Lancaster Farms

  0

  0

  Latchmere House

  0

  0

  Leeds

  2

  1

  Leicester

  0

  1

  Lewes

  2

  1

  Leyhill

  0

  0

  Lincoln

  2

  1

  Lindholme

  0

  0

  Littlehey

  0

  0

  Liverpool

  3

  0

  Long Lartin

  2

  3

  Low Newton

  0

  1

  Lowdham Grange

  0

  0

  Maidstone

  1

  2

  Manchester

  2

  2

  Moorland

  0

  0

  Morton Hall

  0

  0

  Mount, The

  0

  0

  New Hall

  4

  0

  North Sea Camp

  0

  0

  Northallerton

  1

  0

  Norwich

  3

  2

  Nottingham

  1

  1

  Onley

  1

  0

  Parc

  2

  2

  Parkhurst

  0

  1

  Pentonville

  2

  10

  Portland

  0

  0

  Preston

  0

  0

  Ranby

  0

  0

  207W

  As at December

  Prison

  2001

  2000

  Reading

  0

  1

  Risley

  1

  0

  Rochester

  3

  1

  Rye Hill

  0

  0

  Send

  0

  0

  Shepton Mallet

  0

  0

  Shrewsbury

  0

  0

  Stafford

  0

  0

  Standford Hill

  0

  0

  Stocken

  0

  0

  Stoke Heath

  1

  0

  Styal

  3

  3

  Sudbury

  0

  0

  Swaleside

  3

  0

  Swansea

  1

  0

  Swinfen Hall

  0

  0

  Thorn Cross

  0

  0

  Usk/Prescoed

  0

  0

  Verne, The

  0

  0

  Wakefield

  0

  13

  Wandsworth

  3

  4

  Wayland

  0

  0

  Wealstun

  0

  0

  Weare

  0

  0

  Wellingborough

  0

  0

  Werrington

  0

  0

  Wetherby

  2

  0

  Whatton

  0

  0

  Whitemoor

  1

  1

  Winchester

  2

  5

  Woodhill

  10

  0

  Wormwood Scrubs

  3

  3

  Wolds

  0

  0

  Wymott

  0

  0

  1Indicates data not available—new prison

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of health professionals working in prisons have received training in mental health issues. [87438]

  Jacqui Smith
  Mental health services are provided in prisons by both National Health Service providers—mental health in-reach and secondary care—and by healthcare staff employed by prisons. In addition, many prisons employ health professionals with mental health speciality on a contractual or sessional basis to support the work of permanent staff or to provide secondary care advice.

  Of those prison staff providing healthcare in prisons approximately one third of nurses, and 7 per cent. of doctors have formal psychiatric qualifications.

  Within the prison service much training in mental health awareness is being developed and delivered to a range of staff, including training for non-healthcare staff who work with prisoners.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the Director General of the Prison Service to discuss mental health provision in the UK Prison Service. [87576]

  Jacqui Smith
  In my capacity as Minister responsible for Prison Health matters, I last met with the Director General of the Prison Service, Mr. Martin Narey, on 11 September 2001. We discussed a number of issues,208W
  including mental health provision for prisoners. Nigel Crisp, chief executive of the National Health Service and permanent secretary of the Department of Health last met with Mr. Narey on 18 September 2002. Again, a variety of issues, including mental health, were discussed.

  Public Health (Proposed Committee)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what input his Department has had into the proposed committee of senior officials on public health; and what his policy is on the proposed committee. [88171]

  Ms Blears
  The senior officers group on health inequalities is a cross-Government Group chaired by officials from Her Majesty's Treasury and includes in its membership officials of my Department. This Group has the Department's full support.

  Public Information
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 17 December 2002,Official Report, column 783W, for what reason accurate information is not currently available for letters from members of the public. [89360]

  Mr. Lammy
  Letters from the public arrive at several different points in the Department of Health and we do not collate the information routinely. We have established a new Customer Services Centre to improve the timeliness of responses to correspondence.

  Rampton/Broadmoor
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in increasing the number of in-patient beds at(a) Rampton and (b) Broadmoor prison. [87417]

  Jacqui Smith
  Projects are well under way to deliver beds for the dangerous and severe personality disorder (DSPD) programme at both Broadmoor and Rampton High Security Hospitals. This programme will deliver an additional 70 in-patient beds at both hospitals, to be completed by late 2004. Work is due to commence in January 2003 on an initial 10 bed pilot ward for DSPD patients at Broadmoor, which is expected to open in April 2003.

  Runaway Children
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of children who ran away from home since 1997 he estimates suffered from(a) physical abuse and (b) mental abuse. [88189]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government are aware from the social exclusion unit's "Young Runaways" (2002) report that it is estimated that 77,000 children and young people run away every year, including nearly 20,000 who are under 11. However, the information
  209W
  requested, which relates specifically to children who run away as a direct consequence of either suffering physical abuse or from suffering mental abuse is not collected centrally.

  Secure Beds
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what definition he uses of(a) high secure beds, (h) medium secure beds, (c) low secure beds and (d) long-term secure beds in relation to hospitals. [87441]

  Jacqui Smith
  High secure beds are intended for those who pose a grave and immediate danger to others. The perimeter security of these hospitals has recently been upgraded to be equivalent of that of a category B prison. There are three such hospitals: Rampton, Broadmoor and Ashworth.

  Medium secure beds are designed for those who pose a lesser risk and, although there is significant perimeter security, the emphasis is on security derived from the close attention of the staff of the units.

  Low secure beds are those for people who present a minimal risk, often to themselves. They are not designed to prevent a determined escape, and may consist of no more than a locked door to an otherwise conventional ward.

  Long-term secure beds can be either medium or low secure, and are specifically designed for those who are expected to need to stay in hospital for longer than two years.

  Sheltered Housing
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission a cost-benefit analysis of care villages and other forms of extra-care or very-sheltered housing. [84012]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government's policy on long-term care for older people is to promote quality, choice and independence by the increased use of alternative forms of care provision, such as intensive home care and extra care or sheltered housing.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, together with colleagues from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, is considering commissioning information which will help to evaluate comprehensively the state of the potential and future development of the extra care home sector.

  Sight Tests
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have had their sight tested following the extension of eligibility for NHS sight tests to those aged 60 and over. [87675]

  Mr. Lammy
  The table shows the number of national health service sight tests paid for in England for the years ending 31 March 2000 to 2002.

  Eligibility to NHS sight tests was extended to those aged 60 and over from 1 April 1999.
  210W

  General ophthalmic services: number of sight tests paid for by health authorities in England for all patients and patients aged 60 and over

  Number of sight tests for aged 60 and over (millions)

  Total number of sight tests (millions)

  1999–2000

  3.3

  9.4

  2000–1

  3.8

  9.6

  2001–2

  4.0

  9.8

  Information on the number of people having NHS sight tests is not collected centrally. The number of sight tests cannot be equated with the number of people, as some groups are advised to have more than one sight test in a year.

  Social Care
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his targets are for the assessment and provision of social care; and what measures are in place to ensure that these targets are met. [87775]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government's priority targets for social services are set out in the Department of Health's planning and priorities framework for 2003 to 2006, "Improvement, Expansion and Reform: the next three years", principally in the sections on life chances for children in care, mental health and older people. The document sets out priority targets for both health and social services. A copy is available in the Library.

  The priorities for social services and social services performance in general are assessed by the Social Services Inspectorate, taking into account a broad range of performance evidence from performance indicators, inspections and in-year monitoring. Since May 2002 this assessment of performance has been summarised as the social services performance "star" rating. There are significant freedoms available for the best performing councils, providing an incentive to improve. Where councils show poor performance and we do not believe the council has the capacity to improve, we have provided assistance in the form of performance action teams. In cases of serious failure we will not hesitate to use our formal intervention powers.

  Social Services (Targets)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list targets set by his Department in 2002 for social services. [89032]

  Jacqui Smith
  In September 2002 the Government set out the priority targets for both social services and health services in the Department of Health's planning priorities framework for 2003 to 2006, "Improvement, Expansion and Reform: the Next 3 Years". This is available in the Library and on the Internet at http://www.doh.qov.uk/planning 2003–2006.

  Social services targets are mainly in the sections on life chances for children in care, mental health and older people although social services have a contribution to make in other areas such as health inequalities and drug misuse.
  211W

  South Worcestershire PCT Deficit
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that measures taken to address the deficit of the South Worcestershire Primary Care Trust do not lead to long-term reductions in the capacity of the health economy of the area; and if he will make a statement. [88413]

  Mr. Lammy
  The South Worcestershire Primary Care Trust (PCT) as part of its review of all options for reducing its financial deficit is looking at services provided to the local population as well as its own administration and management. The PCT is discussing the implications of service changes and modernisation with a wide range of stakeholders and will be discussing progress on the service reviews at its next public board meeting, which takes place on 5 February 2003.

  The Government expect South Worcestershire PCT to meet performance targets and return to financial balance.

  Thrombolysis
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to improve the delivery of thrombolysis in acute hospitals since March 2002. [88752]

  Ms Blears
  Since March 2002, we have taken a number of steps aimed at improving the delivery of thrombolysis, including:investment of £.10 million from the New Opportunities fund for cardiac monitoring equipment, electro-cardiograph (ECG) machines, on 999 ambulances, to support faster thrombolysis either en route or on arrival at the acute hospital;
  a further £14 million a year central investment over the next three years to complete the programme of providing ECGs for 999 ambulances, to provide thrombolysis training for paramedics and to modernise communications between ambulances and acute hospitals;
  work with the coronary heart disease collaborative to ensure paramedics pre-alert hospitals that heart attack patients are on the way, so that thrombolysis can be started immediately on arrival; and
  a rapid review of best practice with the coronary heart disease collaborative to support better delivery of thrombolysis across the national health service.

  In addition, in October 2002 the National Institute for Clinical Excellence published "Guidance on the use of drugs for early thrombolysis in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction". In November 2002, the Royal College of Physicians published hospital performance data by the myocardial infarction national audit project. This should help hospitals to improve the time they take to provide thrombolysis to patients with a heart attack.

  Wheelchair Organisation

  Organisation

  The Wheelchair Service

  Bedfordshire Heartlands PCT

  Bexhill & Rother Wheelchair Service

  Bexhill & Rother PCT

  The Wirral Wheelchair Assessment Centre

  Birkenhead & Wallasey PCT

  Wheelchair Service

  Brent PCT

  Bromley Wheelchair Service

  Bromley PCT

  South East Staffs Wheelchair Service

  Burntwood, Litchfield & Tamworth PCT, SE Staffs PCT

  Chantry Wheelchair Services

  Central Suffolk PCT

  Southern Derbyshire Wheelchair Service

  Derbyshire Dales and South Derbyshire PCT

  Wheelchair Services

  Doncaster East PCT

  South Durham Wheelchair Service

  Durham and Chester Le-Street PCT

  Enfield Wheelchair Service

  Enfield PCT

  212W

  Tinnitus Research Consortium
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in establishing the Tinnitus Research Consortium agreed by the then Minister on 11 July 2000. [88317]

  Mr. Lammy
  There was no such agreement. At the meeting on 11 July 2000 with representatives of the British Tinnitus Association, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Health (Mr. Hutton), who then had responsibility for sensory disabilities such as tinnitus, was asked for advice about sources of support for tinnitus research. My right hon. Friend suggested that an approach should be made to the Medical Research Council (MRC), which receives its grant in aid from the Department of Trade and Industry via the Office of Science and Technology and which is the main agency through which the Government supports medical research.

  While it is true to say that my right hon. Friend made clear that funds for tinnitus research might be available from the MRC, it would be a mistake to imply that he undertook to secure such funds. The MRC is independent in its funding decisions and does not generally earmark funds for particular toPlcs.

  The MRC has discussed mechanisms of funding with representatives of the British Tinnitus Association, and always welcomes high quality applications for funding medical research, which are judged in open competition with other demands on funding. The MRC is currently funding research projects related to tinnitus, mainly at the MRC Institute for Hearing Research in Nottingham. The MRC is also funding some more basic work on the auditory system, and this would inform any developments in treatments for a range of hearing disorders including tinnitus.

  Wheelchairs
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his Answer of 11 December 2002,official Report, column 401W, on wheelchair services, if he will make a statement on the wheelchair services collaborative programme. [89353]

  Jacqui Smith
  As outlined in the Department's press release of 27 November, forty five centres are now participating in the wheelchair services collaborative, which spans eighteen months. The aim of the collaborative is to improve the overall experience for users and carers, and to work towards minimising delays and maximising efficiency.

  The services participating are shown in the table.
  213W

  Wheelchair Organisation

  Organisation

  The Wheelchair Centre

  Hambleton and Richmondshire pct

  Haringey Wheelchair Service

  Haringey Teaching PCT

  Hillingdon Wheelchair Service

  Hillingdon PCT

  Occupational Therapy & Wheelchair Services

  Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Trust

  The Wheelchair Service

  King's Lynn and Wisebech Hospitals NHS Trust

  Leeds Wheelchair Service

  Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust

  North Essex Wheelchair services

  Maldon and South Chelmsford PCT

  Wheelchair Services

  Milton Keynes PCT

  Disablement Services Centre

  North Cumbria Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  North Cumbria Wheelchair Service

  North Cumbria Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  Wheelchair Centre

  North Lincolnshire Primary Care NHS Trust

  NW Surrey Wheelchair Service

  North Surrey PCT

  Harrow Wheelchair Service

  North West London Hospitals NHS Trust

  Occupational Therapy and Wheelchair Services

  Northamptonshire Heartlands PLC

  Oxford Centre for Enablement

  Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre NHS Trust

  Wheelchair Assessment Centre, Thameside General Hospital

  Oldham PCT/Thameside and Glossop

  Wheelchair Service & Community Equipment Service

  Redditch and Bromsgrove NHS PCT

  Exeter Mobility Centre

  Royal Devon and Exeter Healthcare NHS

  Wheelchair Service

  Sedgefield PCT

  Birmingham Wheelchair Service

  South Birmingham PCT

  Sussex Rehabilitation Centre

  South Downs NHS Trust

  South Tyneside (Healthcare NHS Trust) Wheelchair Services

  South Tyneside PCT

  South Warwickshire PCT

  South Warwickshire PCT

  Wheelchair Services

  Sussex Downs and Weald PCT

  Shropshire Wheelchair Service

  Telford and Wrekin NHS PCT

  Liverpool Wheelchair Service

  The Royal Liverpool and NHS Broadgreen University Hospitals

  Tower Hamlets Wheelchair Service

  Tower Hamlets NHS PCT

  Wheelchair Service at the Rehabilitation Centre

  United Lincoln Hospitals NHS Trust

  Leicestershire Wheelchair Service

  University Hospital of Leicester NHS Trust

  Wheelchair Services

  Walsall PCT

  Wheelchair Service

  Wandsworth NHS PCT

  West Dorset Wheelchair Service

  West Dorset PCT

  The Wheelchair Service

  West Kent NHS and Social Care Trust (Medway PCT, Dartford, Gravesham and Swanley PCT)

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD & RURAL AFFAIRS

  Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (12th Conference)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley)
  One hundred and thirty Parties attended the Conference in Santiago, which took place in a very positive atmosphere in the excellent facilities provided by the Chilean Government.

  The Conference considered 60 proposals to amend the species covered by CITES, which are listed in three Appendices. Appendix I lists highly endangered species which are prohibited in international trade. Appendix II lists species in which trade is permitted only under licence. Appendix III contains species which are listed for monitoring purposes only.

  I attended the Conference during its second week and presented the UK's proposal to list the basking shark on Appendix II. Our first attempt—made at the 11th Conference in Nairobi in April 2000—failed to gain the two thirds majority needed. Since then we have worked hard to produce a stronger proposal based on sound science. This time, following a narrow defeat in an initial vote, we were eventually successful when we took the issue back to the final Plenary session, where we achieved a resounding 82 votes in favour, 36 against and 3 abstentions. I am delighted that our second listing attempt at Santiago has succeeded, providing much needed protection through proper CITES regulation and monitoring of trade. We also welcomed the successful bid by the Philippines to list the whale shark, the world's biggest fish, on Appendix II.

  Another significant success was the Conference decision to support the proposal from Nicaragua and Guatemala to list bigleaf mahogany on Appendix II. We lobbied hard in support of this proposal, and very much welcome the outcome which will help enormously in properly regulating trade in this much sought after timber.

  We also lobbied against certain proposals and were particularly pleased that the Parties rejected Japan's proposals to downlist Minke and Bryde's whales from Appendix I to Appendix II. We are opposed to all forms of whaling other than subsistence whaling by indigenous people and all EU Member States opposed these proposals at the Conference.

  There has been considerable public interest in the elephant proposals. We believe that the outcome of the elephant proposals was fair and reasonable.

  The proposals from Zambia and Zimbabwe for a limited trade in products from their elephant populations were rejected, whilst those from Botswana,
  2WS
  Namibia and South Africa were adopted with significant amendments to ensure that adequate safeguards are in place before a one-off sale takes place. Under the terms of the agreement reached in Santiago, Botswana, Namibia and South Africa may conduct one-off sales of their raw ivory stockpiles, but not before May 2004 and only provided that a number of strict conditions relating to trade controls, monitoring and the use of the funds raised for elephant conservation have first been met. The sale will not take place if any of these conditions are not met. Under the agreement, the only trade which may go ahead will be in:

  a) hunting trophies for non-commercial purposes;

  b) live animals for in-situ conservation programmes;

  c) hides;

  d) leather goods for non commercial purposes;

  e) registered raw ivory (whole tusks and pieces) subject to the following:

  i. Only registered government-owned stocks, originating in [Botswana/Namibia/South Africa] (excluding seized ivory and ivory of unknown origin);

  ii. Only to trading partners that have been verified by the Secretariat, in consultation with the Standing Committee, to have sufficient national legislation and domestic trade controls to ensure that the imported ivory will not be re-exported and will be managed in accordance with all requirements of CITES Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev.) concerning domestic manufacturing and trade;

  iii. Not before May 2004, and in any event not before the Secretariat has verified the prospective importing countries, and MIKE (the 'Monitoring of Illegal Killing of Elephants' programme) has reported to the Secretariat on the baseline information (e.g. elephant population numbers, incidence of illegal killing);

  iv. A maximum amount of [20,000kg/10,000kg/30.000kg] of ivory may be traded, and despatched in a single shipment under strict supervision of the Secretariat;

  v. The proceeds of the trade are used exclusively for elephant conservation and community conservation and development programs within or adjacent to the elephant range;

  vi. Only after the Standing Committee has agreed that the above conditions have been met.

  On a proposal from the Secretariat, the Standing Committee can decide to cause this trade to partially or completely cease in the event of non-compliance by exporting or importing countries, or in the case of proven detrimental impacts of the trade on other elephant populations. All specimens that are not allowed to be traded under the above provisions shall be deemed to be specimens of species included in Appendix I and the trade in them shall be regulated accordingly."

  In addition to the 60 species listing proposals the Conference considered 71 Resolutions relating to implementation of the Convention. These included a Resolution to address conservation of and trade in tigers and other Asian big cat species such as the leopard, snow leopard, clouded leopard and Asiatic lion; and another agreeing to continue the work of the CITES Bushmeat Working Group for the intersessional period to the next Conference. The Conference rejected a proposal by Switzerland to exempt synthetically derived material from the requirements of the

  3WS
  Convention, but adopted a Resolution outlining simplified procedures for issuing permits and certificates for time sensitive biological samples which will reduce the administrative burden on those transmitting DMA or other diagnostic samples for example.

  The UK's application on behalf of the Cayman Islands to register the Cayman Turtle Farm narrowly failed to obtain the necessary two thirds majority for approval, despite support from the CITES Secretariat and many Parties. The main concerns were over the lack of proof of legality of the founder stock, and possible mixing with and contamination of wild stocks. The Farm will now seek to address the concerns which emerged in debate, with a view to resubmitting this application under the CITES postal procedure.

  I believe that this represents an excellent outcome overall, not only for the UK but also for the CITES process itself, which has demonstrated that countries all over the world can unite to provide effective conservation measures to protect a wide range of commercially exploited species.

FOREIGN & COMMONWEALTH

  Arms Embargo (Iran)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien)
  The Government has recently issued a licence for the export of synchros to be used as an inspection tool on Tay 650 engines used to power Fokker 100 aircraft. These synchros were made as military electronic equipment. However, the Government is satisfied that these synchros are to be used only for the upkeep of the Fokker 100, a civil aircraft. The risk of these goods being diverted for use by the Iranian military is minimal.

  Indonesia (Travel Advice)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien)
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) travel advice for Indonesia was today changed.

  Previously it advised against all travel to the country. It now advises against all non-essential travel to Indonesia. The FCO continues to assess that the threat to British nationals and British interests from terrorism throughout Indonesia remains high and that British nationals already in Indonesia should consider leaving if their presence is not essential.

  The decision to change the advice was taken after careful consideration of the latest information, including intelligence. It also brings it into line with the latest advice of the Australian Government. The terrorist threat in Indonesia remains real, and further attacks cannot be ruled out. But account has also been taken of the strengthened Indonesian commitment and actions since Bali to confront the terrorists.

  Since Bali there has been only one significant attack, at a McDonalds restaurant and a car showroom in Makassar, Sulawesi, in December, which killed three Indonesian nationals. A number of anti-terrorist decrees have been passed and some important arrests
  4WS
  made in respect of the Bali bombings and previous terrorist incidents. The Muslim mass movements are now speaking out against terrorism. The radical cleric Abu Bakar Bashir has been held for police questioning. The Indonesians have also provided more security than before to diplomatic missions and international schools, as well as other non-specifically Western targets, such as shopping malls, entertainment centres and churches.

  A copy of the latest advice can be found on the FCO web site www.fco.gov.uk.

  Iraq
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw)
  As I have made clear to the House on a number of occasions, our policy on Iraq is to ensure Iraq complies with its obligations under relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions (UNSCRs), including by giving up its weapons of mass destruction. I thought, however, that the House would now appreciate a more detailed statement of the Government's objectives on Iraq.

  Our prime objective is to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their associated programmes and means of delivery, including prohibited ballistic missiles (BM), as set out in UNSCRs. This would reduce Iraq's ability to threaten its neighbours and the region, and prevent Iraq using WMD against its own people. UNSCRs also require Iraq to renounce terrorism, and return captured Kuwaitis and property taken from Kuwait.

  These UNSCRs are an expression of the will of the international community, with which Iraq has persistently failed to comply, thereby perpetuating the threat to international peace and security.

  A further objective is to maintain the authority of the United Nations by demonstrating the Security Council's effective response to the challenge posed by Iraq's non-compliance. Success in achieving our prime objective should help deter the proliferation of WMD and BM more generally.

  We have pursued these objectives through the United Nations, culminating in the unanimous adoption by the Security Council of UNSCR 1441 (2002) on 8 November 2002.

  Our immediate priorities are to:

  a) Support the work of the UNMOVIC/IAEA inspectors in Iraq;

  b) Enable UNMOVIC/IAEA to institute long-term measures to ensure compliance as part of their Ongoing Monitoring and Verification regime;

  c) Maintain international solidarity behind the United Nations Security Council and support for effective UN MOVIC/IAEA action;

  d) Preserve regional stability;

  e) Continue to make military plans and preparations in case military action is required to enforce compliance by Iraq with its WMD/BM obligations under UNSCRs;

  f) Continue to support humanitarian efforts to relieve the suffering of the Iraqi people.

  We would like Iraq to become a stable, united and law abiding state, within its present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a

  5WS
  threat to its neighbours or to international security, abiding by all its international obligations and providing effective and representative government for its own people.

  These objectives are consistent with wider government policy, which includes:

  a) Efforts to resolve other causes of regional instability, including the Middle East Peace Process;

  b) Wider political engagement with Arab countries and the Islamic world;

  c) Efforts to counter the proliferation of WMD; and

  d) The elimination of terrorism as a force in international affairs.

  To achieve our objectives we will act in conformity with international law, including the United Nations Charter and international humanitarian law.
  6WS
  Consistent with the above, we are working intensively with our allies and partners to secure the peaceful disarmament of Iraq's WMD by means of UNMOVIC/IAEA inspections. But as SCR 1441 makes clear, if the Iraqi regime does not comply, it will face serious consequences.

  Venice Commission (Alternate UK Member)
  The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane)
  I am pleased to announce that I have today appointed Professor Anthony Bradley as the Alternate UK Member of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (the Venice Commission). The Venice Commission is a Council of Europe body, which is made up of constitutional experts who provide member states with advice on constitutions and democratic institutions furthering human rights and the rule of law.

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

Tributes to the late Lord Jenkins of Hillhead
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead died on Sunday last at the age of 82. Roy Harris Jenkins was born on Armistice Day in 1920. He grew to be one of the most influential political figures of the 20th century. Politics ran in his family. He was the son of Arthur Jenkins, Member of Parliament for Pontypool from 1935 to 1946. His father had gone to work as quite a small child down the pit and was later, unjustly, imprisoned for his political activities.
Lord Jenkins read PPE at Balliol, where he took a first, having had the inestimable benefit of a grounding in education at Abersychan Grammar School. During the winter of 1940, he and some of his friends began to feel that they were the only members of the Labour Club at Oxford not committed to the Communist Party line. Lord Jenkins therefore took part in a split from the Labour Club to help form a breakaway organisation. His main memory of that move was a long correspondence with Iris Murdoch, his opposite number in the old Labour Club. Murdoch would write, "Dear Comrade Jenkins"; he would reply, "Dear Miss Murdoch". Forty-seven years later, he was able to award her an honorary degree from Oxford University.
Lord Jenkins was a captain in the Royal Artillery and worked as a code breaker on the Enigma machine. During that period, he became committed absolutely to the idea of a united Europe.
He entered the House of Commons in 1948 and soon became one of the most powerful and formidable debaters in that Chamber. He became a Minister in 1964. In 1965, when he was only 45, he was appointed Home Secretary by Mr Wilson. He was very pleased to be the youngest in that grave office since Churchill in 1910. He was a liberal Home Secretary, who worked tirelessly to remove flogging from the penal code and the prison discipline system. He liberalised, or helped to liberalise, the laws relating to homosexuality, divorce, abortion and immigration. He abolished theatre censorship and was responsible for broader laws against racial discrimination. He introduced the concept of suspended sentences and majority verdicts, both of which were extremely controversial at the time, and yet the latter certainly proved a great success.
Mr Wilson appointed Lord Jenkins Chancellor of the Exchequer in November 1967. It was a very difficult time. The pound had been devalued, and in his three years of service in that great office, he instituted
874
a programme of austerity to resolve the financial crisis. His party's position on Europe at that time was at odds with his personal views. In defiance of the party majority, he supported Britain's entry into the European Community. In 1972, he resigned as Deputy Leader when the party seemed to be turning its back on Europe. In 1977, he became President of the European Commission, having successfully led the referendum campaign in this country.
In 1981, Lord Jenkins became one of the Gang of Four, who co-founded the Social Democratic Party as a proposed and anticipated alternative to the Labour Party. His three co-founders are, of course, all now Members of this House. He became Lord Jenkins of Hillhead in 1987 and—perhaps one of the most distinct and discreet pleasures of his life—the chancellor of his own university in the same year.
As well as being one of the key political figures of the 20th century—if that were not enough achievement for a single life—Lord Jenkins was a prolific and successful author. His works on Gladstone, Dilke, Asquith, House of Lords reform and, latterly, his bestseller Churchill, show us a man with a deep historical sense and a significant literary gift. He knew that politics is not simply the art of the possible, but also the science of the moment—but he knew that both had consciously to be located in a wider, more profound, historical context.
In his autobiography, Lord Jenkins. summed up the House of Lords by saying:
"it is rather like Adlai Stevenson's comment on flattery: it is all right provided you do not inhale".
I think that he did inhale a little; he certainly added to the fun of life here, as well as to the nature of politics. He had many accomplishments, although he was not a Welsh speaker. There is a good phrase in that ancient language: "Dyn a ddyn"—such a man that was.
We shall Miss Lord Jenkins a good deal, and more than we presently understand. We send deep condolences to those he loved and cared for.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the tribute paid by the Leader of the House to Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. From time to time, there appear in politics people whose career and influence stretch far beyond the confines of a single party. Lord Jenkins was such a man. Can anyone in the 20th century who did not become Prime Minister have exercised such a major impact on our politics? By his resolute chancellorship he saved the Labour Party as a party of government after the devaluation of 1967. Along with the noble Lords, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank and Lord Owen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, he pointed the way to the future for the Labour Party a dozen years before that was recognised and accepted in Labour ranks.
The charge was also laid that by forming the SDP, Lord Jenkins had made Thatcherism possible. I would not necessarily see that as a vice in the noble Lord. But he was, with typical farsightedness, reacting to a reality; namely, that state-led socialism was a dead end and radical reform was needed for Britain to prosper.

875
Roy Jenkins was never afraid of change. Being a son of a Welsh miner, he presented as a quintessential Englishman and for five years after 1982 became a Scot. It is a little remembered fact that Hillhead, the seat of his great by-election win, was represented for nearly 35 years—until 1982—by my father. It was so little remembered, in fact, that when Roy Jenkins was telephoned and told "Galbraith has died", he thought that it was the economist J.K. Galbraith rather than his passport back to Westminster.
Obviously, I see Hillhead in a very personal light, but no one could doubt the courage and conviction with which the noble Lord threw himself into the uphill battle for that unlikely seat. He was always a man of courage, and one of deep and lasting convictions. Like them or not, his great and often controversial reforms as Home Secretary in the 1960s will last and, like it or not, he took bold, public and often unpopular stands on issues such as deeper European integration, proportional representation and entry into the euro, over which he did not hesitate and from which he did not waver.
Lord Jenkins's term as President of the European Union reflected the deep respect for the noble Lord across Europe. His cherished chancellorship of Oxford reflected his deep love for Oxford and his distinguished achievements as an historian. Like Rosebery's memoir of Lord Randolph Churchill, his books on Asquith and Winston Churchill will live long as rare examples of great political biographies by a leading politician.
It is perhaps no accident that Asquith and Churchill thrived in eras when parties were made and unmade, and great issues scored across the conventional lines of politics. Lord Jenkins lived in such a time. He helped to mould that time. That he was also a person of such charm, humour and zest for life, and someone with such unashamed enjoyment of the good things and the civilised virtues, make him a man all of us who had the good fortune to know him will long remember. Our hearts go out to his family and his friends, but they can take consolation in the remarkable journey on which Roy Jenkins led them, and the respect and affection that he won.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, from these Benches and on behalf of my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby, who is abroad, we are grateful for the remarks made by the Lord Privy Seal about Lord Jenkins. We share the love and sadness of his wife Jennifer and his family.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead—Roy Jenkins—was a statesman and a man of letters of Victorian proportions, and many things besides. The noble and learned Lord has set out his career and achievements, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has added his own generous comments. Above all else, Roy Jenkins had a great capacity for friendship and loyalty. In return he could draw warmth and affection beyond expectations. His death leaves a huge gap in the lives of many of us. It will not be the same again.
876
Lord Jenkins last attended the House on 7th November when illness was casting a shadow over his plans. But he hoped that, with progress, he would return to Westminster soon after the end of the Recess. Meanwhile, he continued to follow the pages of Hansard, even including the Licensing Bill in Committee. Rather less surprising, he would join with his visitors for a genial lunch either at his home in East Hendred or in a well chosen country pub. He was working on an article about Hugh Gaitskell, the 40th anniversary of whose death falls later this month. On Friday last, when his immediate health problem had apparently been resolved, he signed a contract for yet another book, in this case about J. F. Kennedy.
Just over two years ago, when faced with cardiac surgery, Lord Jenkins recognised the possibility that he might not be able to complete his book on Churchill. But he recovered and, astonishingly, very soon he was writing again—500 words a day. When it was completed it was a triumph.
Lord Jenkins was a Member of Parliament in either the Commons or the Lords for almost 50 years, with a break only when he was President of the European Commission. The 1950s presented a bleak political prospect for Back-Benchers in opposition, but he attended almost every day and piloted through his Private Member's Bill on reform of the law on obscene publications. Even in 1972, when he resigned as deputy leader of the Labour Party, he was determined to rebuild his outstanding reputation in parliamentary debate. Later again, in 1986, after another difficult time, he was chosen as Spectator "Back-Bencher of the Year". He was resilient throughout his career.
Lord Jenkins led the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords with great distinction for almost 10 years. He continued to attend the House on most days, although, as he put it:
"I do not often trouble noble Lords these days".
In fact, as we know, most noble Lords were happy to be troubled by Lord Jenkins, whether remaining on the Benches or coming into the Chamber to listen. He made a characteristic speech about reform of the Lords a year ago on 10th January. Another speech— his last—on his fears about war with Iraq was on 24th September. Both were very different but both were rich in quality.
All his speeches had much in common. He would find historic analogies; he would find humour and especially paradox; he would find precision of words— usually some unexpected ones; and, above all, he would demonstrate the force of argument. Most of his speeches were short. He was rather proud about that. Some speeches were said to be magisterial and others baroque, but they were all written in his own hand. They were his own speeches, set down carefully on cards. He also had a rather special gesture of his own, difficult to describe and difficult to copy, although we all tried.
I am tempted to set out again his distinguished record as a reforming and civilised Home Secretary, as a tough Chancellor of the Exchequer in difficult economic times, his Charlemagne Prize, his role as

877
Chancellor of Oxford University and his Order of Merit. Then there was his special relationship with the United States, which he found no contradiction with his strong European ties; and there was his crucial role as one of the founding fathers of the SDP and the Liberal Democrats. But the catalogue is much too long for this occasion.
Lord Jenkins was a great luncher—never on his own, and sometimes in the Barry Room—and his evenings during the week were filled with social and literary occasions. He was also in demand, if I can put it that way, with those who wanted a stylish, well-chosen oration at a memorial service.
Lord Jenkins died shortly after 9 a.m. on Sunday, two days ago. During the previous evening, he was putting the final touches to another book—on Franklin Roosevelt. I think he would like one of those anecdotes about him with which he so enriched and entertained his own biographies. At breakfast on Sunday, his wife, Jennifer, asked him what he would like. The reply became his last words:
"I would like two eggs lightly poached".
Roy Jenkins would have enjoyed that.
Lord Owen: My Lords, from the Cross Benches it is a pleasure to endorse what was said by the previous three speakers from the three political parties. For me, it is a particular pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, who was undoubtedly Roy's longest-standing political friend—a frank and faithful friend and someone who contributed greatly to his political life.
I do not want to cover all the different things that have been said today in the House and I speak only of two legacies. One is permanent, and that is his contribution to Britain's membership of the European Community. I suppose that three people will be judged by history to have taken this country fully into the European Union: Prime Minister Edward Heath for getting us through the parliamentary legislation and Prime Minister Harold Wilson for carrying the full-hearted consent of the British people in the referendum. But without the contribution of Roy Jenkins, we would certainly never have gone in at that time.
Lord Jenkins played a crucial part in rallying 69 Labour MPs to vote. It was a very difficult vote in very difficult circumstances. I admit that, at the time, I was rather tempted by an abstention, but he convinced me unequivocally that that would be falling below the level of events. Then, when he resigned as deputy leader and when, again, it was tempting—as I was tempted—to go for the referendum amendment which we were being asked to support, he made it abundantly clear that, if we did so, we would ditch our chances of going in at that time. We had to face the issue of sustaining parliamentary authority. From the moment that he resigned, any doubt that we would go in was over. That was a great achievement, and he followed it as president of the Commission and in many other ways. That, I believe, is a permanent legacy—one of which historically he would be extremely proud.
878
It is difficult to be sure that the other legacy will last. As a Cross-Bencher now, it is interesting to watch the political parties exaggerate the divisions. But in the 1980s there was no exaggeration of the divisions in party politics. They were immensely deep and covered every aspect of our political life: defence, foreign and economic policy. Looking back—how long the new politics of a greater readiness to find a compromise, a consensus, between the parties will last I do not know but it certainly started during the 1990s—there have been genuine and real differences of opinion and long may they last: they are the stuff of politics and of democracy. But the bitterness, the division and the inability to find a consensus and common ground were absent—perhaps that divisiveness started in the 1970s but it went on certainly all through the 1980s.
In his Dimbleby lecture, in being the first leader of the SDP and in being an SDP MP for five years, Roy helped that party and the country to make what I hope will be a long legacy of ending that raw, vicious divisiveness which damaged our country, our economic strength and our political weight in the world. I should like to think that that will be as important a legacy as the one that he gave to this country through our membership of the European Community.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, from these Benches I want to say quite simply but as strongly as I can that we shall Miss Lord Jenkins. His was, indeed, A Life at the Centre, as the title of his autobiography puts it. His was a presence that we felt on the Benches opposite, even when he was just sitting there quietly. Despite, or perhaps because of, his great distinction, he was, from a personal point of view, not only friendly but enormously and warmly encouraging.
Of his political career, I make a single point: his willingness to put his democratic principles to the test by standing for election. Whatever future historians may make of his decision to leave the Labour Party and found the SDP, he was prepared to go to Warrington and Glasgow to ascertain the will of the people. In a similar spirit, he was willing to submit himself for election as Chancellor of the University of Oxford—a post which we know gave him the most enormous pride and pleasure.
Of his role within this House, some words of Dean Stanley, which he quoted, about Gladstone's parliamentary style apply no less to him. Stanley wrote:
"One great charm of his speaking is its exceeding good humour. There is great vehemence but no bitterness".
At a more trivial level I always marvelled at his capacity to read his notes, in the most minuscule handwriting on tiny cards; and when he was clearly having great difficulty reading them, allowing the eloquence of his body to carry him through.
Finally, there is his style as a person and as a writer, as befits someone who was President of the Royal Society of Literature. My fellow Bishop, the right revered Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, described one sentence in his book on Gladstone as:
"Laced with self-deprecating irony and a charming and paradoxical immodesty."

879
One of my favourite sentences occurs in his biography of Churchill. In 1915 Churchill went on holiday to a farmhouse in what was then countryside near Godalming.
"We lived very simply here",
he wrote to his brother on 19th June,
"But with all the essentials of life well understood and well provided for—hot baths, cold champagne, new peas and old brandy".
This combination of relish for the simple pleasures of life described in such an elegant and finely-balanced sentence entirely fits the late Lord Jenkins. His was a constructive, productive life right to the end. As the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, pointed out, he signed a contract for a major biography only last Friday.
Our sympathy goes to Dame Jennifer and other members of his family and close friends as we thank God for his outstanding achievements in so many spheres and for the fact that his life, lived with such vigour and purpose, enhanced the political life of the nation in so many ways. My prayer is that as he enjoyed the hospitality of the earth so he might, with even greater relish, enjoy the hospitality of heaven.
Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, I should like to add a brief footnote to the eloquent tributes paid, which deals with Lord Jenkins's interest in higher education. When the Earl of Stockton died in December 1986 the University of Oxford lost its chancellor. I was then vice-chancellor. We organised an election. It was a three-cornered fight. Lord Jenkins won the contest.
Mention has been made of style. When Lord Jenkins assumed office he organised a special degree ceremony, as the rubric stated in the Gazette,
"to mark the start of the period of office of the new Chancellor of the University".
Noble Lords will be the judges of whether the list of those who received degrees is characteristic of the Jenkins' style. He began with two degrees by diploma, the first to His Majesty King Baudouin, Knight of the Garter, King of the Belgians, and the second to His Excellency Professor Francesco Cossiga, President of the Italian Republic.
He then moved to the second tier: honorary degrees. In the list as doctor of civil law was the former Taoiseach of Ireland, Dr Garret Fitzgerald. Across the Atlantic was Robert McNamara, former president of the World Bank. Then came one of our own ambassadors, a close friend, ambassador in four embassies: Warsaw, Bonn, Paris and Washington—you will have guessed—Sir Nicholas Henderson. As Doctors of Letters were Sir Isaiah Berlin, Order of Merit; Dame (but not comrade) Iris Murdoch; and Arthur Schlessinger Junior. As Doctor of Science was emeritus Professor Dorothy Hodgkin, Order of Merit. That gives the flavour of the list and of the Jenkins' style within the university. Others were included in the list for reasons of piety or tradition.
On becoming a Member of this House, the noble Lord threw his energies into trying to improve the Education Reform Bill, which was then passing
880
through this House, and made many notable contributions to that. I shall refer to only one, which became known as the "Jenkins amendment"; a clause on academic freedom. Noble Lords will recall that academic tenure was being abolished. Fears were expressed in the university that that would lead to people being pushed out of their posts if they were writing heterodox or controversial views or experimenting in doubtful areas. Great alarm was spread. Lord Jenkins moved the amendment which embodied these simple words; that the university Commissioners, to whom relevant powers were given, must have regard for the need,
"to ensure that academic staff have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges they may have at their institutions".—[Official Report, 19/5/88; col. 471.]
That was put to a vote and carried by quite a narrow majority. Surprisingly, no subsequent effort was made in another place to remove it. Perhaps it was thought it would be like voting against motherhood. That passage stood and Lord Jenkins gave tremendous support to the academic community by having achieved that. He made many subsequent contributions to education Bills, but I say nothing of that today.
Back at Oxford, he was an outstanding chancellor, as everyone agreed. He was dignified and witty on all public occasions. Behind the scenes and in private he was a constant support, a friend and a wise counsellor to successive vice-chancellors.

Saville Inquiry
3.6 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the cost of the Saville inquiry into the Bloody Sunday incident has yet exceeded £150 million; and, if not, whether both Houses of Parliament will be notified when it does.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, no. The total cost of the inquiry to government was £94.8 million up to the end of November 2002. It is estimated that the final cost will be £155 million, subject to the outcome of the judicial reviews of decisions on lawyers' costs. The costs of the inquiry have been made available and will continue to be provided to Members of either House on request.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Does he recall—I am sure he does—not just Bloody Sunday but bloody Friday all those years ago? Does he recall, as many of us do, the massacres at Warren Point or the murder of 20 civilians in 1974 on the M62? Looking back over the history of Northern Ireland does the Minister not agree that it has been filled with appalling atrocities, of which Bloody Sunday was one? It seems disproportionate that the huge sum mentioned by the noble and learned Lord should be

881
spent on that inquiry on that incident, particularly as it is a second inquiry. Does he not think that men of peace in Northern Ireland and here should now think about better ways of spending such vast sums for the security and prosperity of the people of Northern Ireland, including the people of Derry?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is a second inquiry but over many years serious questions have been raised about the adequacy of the first inquiry, and those questions remain unanswered. We are at a stage where a vast amount of evidence has been taken. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has given evidence and that Sir Edward Heath is shortly to give evidence. Now is not the moment to draw a close to this inquiry.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord be good enough to say whether or not the figure he quoted includes the expenses of the Ministry of Defence? If not, can he say what such figure amounts to? Is not the noble and learned Lord beginning to share the view that perhaps the only beneficiaries of this long drawn out and miserable inquiry will be those who seek every opportunity to deride and sneer at the Armed Forces of the Crown? Does he not think that they deserve better of us all than that?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the figure I gave is the total figure as at the end of November of last year. The costs of the Ministry of Defence are included in that figure. They are £21 million. Those costs are rightly discharged if allegations are made against those who serve in Her Majesty's services. I know the noble Lord will agree that if allegations are made against those in the Armed Forces and others in public services they must be protected and have their interests looked after. That is the £21 million.
The noble Lord described the inquiry as slow and miserable. It is slow. In the nature of things it is hound to be. But these allegations—as I said when I replied to the noble Lord's question on similar lines—are most serious. They are allegations of state crime. If they are right, they should be exposed. If they are wrong, it should be demonstrated that they are wrong.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, is the Lord Privy Seal aware that following the recent allegations and revelations about the IRA bombing of Claudy in 1972—the same year as Bloody Sunday—there are growing demands across the community in Northern Ireland for a full inquiry into the Claudy atrocity? Are the Government likely to accede to that request? If not, why not?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, is quite right, there are serious allegations about the IRA and the alleged involvement of a Roman Catholic priest. The noble Lord will know, as I do, that the Police Service of Northern Ireland is being absolutely fearless in carrying out its own
882
independent investigation, liasing, as it rightly should. with the relatives of those who were so cruelly murdered.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, this inquiry is now entering its sixth year. I confess to having spoken against its being set-up. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that if, after five years of diligent plodding and questioning, the truth has not been arrived at, it never will be? Does he further agree that we should have a short inquiry as to why so much money has been spent to achieve so little?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as I said—obviously it is necessary to repeat myself—in answer to the question asked a short time ago by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, there are lessons to be learned about the structures of inquiries. I referred to the concern of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. There is a case for making inquiries much more inquisitorial. But the timetable of this inquiry, the nature of the evidence and the structures and procedures are essentially governed by statute and by the discretion of the chair of the inquiry, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville. Is it seriously being suggested that we should bring this inquiry to a halt at this moment? If it is, I would have to say that I profoundly disagree.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is some disparity between the sum that has been spent on the inquiry and the fact that the people of Omagh are still unable to secure a civil inquiry into what happened to them, which they have to pay for? Is it not possible that the Government might, whatever they decide to do about Bloody Sunday recognise that against that enormous figure it is extremely difficult to defend a position where nothing is done to find out the truth and bring to justice the people who committed the murders in Omagh?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I may be mistaken, but my understanding is that the relatives of those who were murdered in Omagh are taking civil action against the alleged perpetrators. That is a very effective way of getting at the truth because automatic discovery is available. I understand that that action is continuing. If I am mistaken, I shall give way to any of your Lordships who have better knowledge.

Primary Care Trusts: Appointment of Non-executive Directors
3.14 p.m.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare that I am a non-executive director of a primary care trust.

883
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the performance of the National Health Service Appointments Commission in appointing non-executive directors of primary care trusts is satisfactory.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Government are confident that the National Health Service Appointments Commission is performing satisfactorily. In its first year the Commission made over 1,700 appointments.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his soothing reply. Is he aware that the unhelpful advice given by the head of the appointments Commission—that non-executive directors should reduce their involvement in primary care trusts—has been totally contradicted by the findings of the NHS Confederation? Only two out of 70 primary care trust chairmen felt their colleagues were spending too much time and interfering with the work of full-time staff. Does not that serious lack of perception by the appointments Commission indicate the need for a review of its services to PCTs, many of which are still without their full complement of non-executive directors?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is being a little unfair to the appointments Commission and Sir William Wells. When he appeared before the Public Administration Select Committee in June last year, he made clear the Commission's view that perhaps the level of time commitment was too great by some non-executive directors and chairs. He thought that that level of time commitment might discourage people from a wide range of backgrounds applying to be non-executive directors. The response from existing non-executive directors does not share Sir William's view and the Commission is giving the matter further consideration. I think that it is right for Sir William to draw attention to the dangers of non-executives taking on an executive role. Executive directors are employed to do that job. I also believe that in handling a large number of appointments the Commission is doing an effective job.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, following the Minister's reply to the noble Lord, Lord Chan, is it not the case that many people are reluctant to come forward for these non-executive jobs because of the very poor remuneration, as many of them have to spend up to 60 hours a month on those jobs?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I disagree. First, the remuneration for non-executive directors is £5,294 per annum. The chairs receive a range of honorarium from just over £16,000 to just over £20,000, depending on the size of the organisation they chair.
884
These appointees do immensely valuable work. But they are not executive appointees. They are there to bring the public's view to these bodies. I believe, as someone who has worked with these people for many years, that there is a great danger in their undertaking too many duties and not giving enough space for executive directors to do what they are paid for.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the Minister said that the time commitment was supposedly an issue. I agree with that. I declare an interest in that one of my family works on the Commission and my husband serves as an interviewer of possible applicants.
The Minister said that he had asked people about the time commitment. Does he agree that one of the problems is the age of non-executive directors serving on primary care trusts? There are few under the age of 45. That is because the hours and times of the meetings are such that if someone is in employment they cannot give up the number of hours to which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred. When does the Minister think that the Secretary of State will be able to look at the question not just of the actual time commitment, which is not clear enough often for young people in employment, but also at the possibility of changing hours and having meetings at different times, which would enable young people to have jobs and to take on this commitment?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the point made by the noble Baroness. As to the recommendations of the Commission, I understand it will now be submitting advice to Ministers in the spring of this year. The noble Baroness referred to the number of younger people appointed to the boards of NHS organisations. I should point out that 13.8 per cent of all appointees come within the 36 to 45 age group and 1.8 per cent are in the 35 and under age group.
I agree that it would be useful to have more younger people on those boards. I do not think that, given the current time requirement, one can reasonably expect people fully engaged in a career to be able to give that time. That is why I personally, in the light of my own experience of working with board members, think that Sir William has a point here.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the relationship between governance and management is complex, as anyone in public life knows? Current problems are largely a result of the current stage of development of PCTs. As each side—executive and governance—begins to be more confident of its role, that problem will in all likelihood disappear.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I hope that it will disappear, but there are examples of non-executives of existing acute trusts, for instances, which have been existence for many years, who still seem to see their role as more executive than non-executive. It should be made clear, and we shall continue to encourage the appointments Commission to make clear, to those people so appointed that their job is not

885
to run the organisation day to day but to provide effective public stewardship. We pay executive directors rather a lot of money to take on those responsibilities and I am clear that it is they who should take on the executive role.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, on a point of clarification, the Minister has now in effect said three times that some non-executive directors are being dysfunctional by taking on executive roles and meddling with executives. Would it not be much easier for everyone if the Government were to specify exactly how many hours they expect non-executive directors to serve per month or per year? That might release some of the younger people who they want to serve on the hoards. For example, if they suggested that 10 hours per month and no more were required, companies might be prepared to release good executives to take on non-executive roles in PCTs.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not disagree with the point made by the noble Baroness. Sir William's aim was clearly to specify a general level of commitment that would enable the kind of people mentioned by the noble Baroness to serve on boards. We want to encourage not just senior company executives but people from all walks of life. We should not let an arbitrary rule that they must give a certain amount of time bar good people from applying and being appointed. Equally, we need flexibility. There may be occasions, as my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley suggested—especially when a primary care trust is starting its work—when we would naturally expect non-executives to give more time. Once trusts are fully established, they should be able to ease off. We clearly need flexibility.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, are the responsibilities in law of the executive and non-executive directors of PCTs the same as they are under company law for commercial directors?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, all the directors, whether executive or non-executive, are corporately responsible for the activities of the organisation. The chief executive will also be an accountable officer. For instance, if the Public Accounts Committee was inquiring into the financial matters of an individual organisation, that officer could be required to accompany the Permanent Secretary of the Department of Health to PAC hearings.

Breast Screening
3.24 p.m.
Lord Astor of Heverasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether National Health Service breast screening techniques are sufficiently accurate.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, no screening test can guarantee 100 per cent accuracy. However, mammography remains the most reliable way to detect breast cancer early.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, too often, harmless changes in breast tissue result in unnecessary removal, with all the associated risks of surgery? What progress is being made to improve the accuracy of screening by using computer technology to store and assess scans?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord's suggestion is right in the sense that seven out of eight women who have an abnormal initial mammogram prove on further investigation not to have breast cancer. The initial test is only an indicator of whether further tests or surgery may be required. As to the use of computer-aided diagnosis, we recognise its potential but it is at an early stage. We are at present monitoring developments. I must tell the noble Lord that in introducing any new technology we must ensure that it is safe and effective.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, in this context, in addition to the quality of screening, are not the resources devoted to diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer crucial? All the breast cancer charities still say that the resources allocated to them are not getting through. What is the Department of Health going to do about that?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is fair to say that concerns about funding have been expressed by cancer charities. We are very much aware of that. On the evidence, we are considering the data on cancer investment in the routine returns we receive from the NHS. I must tell noble Lords that there are many omissions and inaccuracies in the current returns. Because of that, we have decided to undertake a special exercise in the NHS to compile investment on cancer to compare 2001–02 with 2002–03. We expect to be able to publish that information in the spring.
Despite those concerns, there has been a great expansion in the amount of equipment and number of consultants and radiographers employed in the service. That gives us confidence that the future development of cancer services appears satisfactory.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, is consideration being given to extending the age group of women undergoing breast screening?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we are in the middle of extending screening programmes automatically to cover women aged 65 to 70. The aim is to complete that by 2004. So far, more than 150,000 more women have been invited for screening as a result of the extension. What evidence there is suggests that breast screening for women aged over 70 may not be effective and may even do more harm than good,

887
although there would be benefit for some individual women. Given that, women aged over 70 will be offered free yearly screening on request.
Earl Howe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in some parts of the country, breast screening services have been suspended because of a shortage of radiologists? What is being done to tackle that shortage?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, of course, if there is a shortage of staff—whether consultant radiologists or radiographers—that may impact on the screening programme. We are tackling the whole issue of workforce expansion. In fact, the number of consultants employed in cancer specialisms has increased considerably from just over 3,000 in 1997 to 3,860 in 2002. The number of diagnostic radiographers has increased from 10,360 in 1997 to 11,160 in 2001. We are also increasing the number of training places for future radiographers.

Sub-Saharan Africa: Debt
3.29 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwichasked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to move beyond the enhanced heavily indebted poor countries initiative towards full debt sustainability in sub-Saharan Africa.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the recent global economic slowdown and weaker commodity prices pose a threat to debt sustainability in sub-Saharan Africa. The Government have been at the forefront of the international debate on debt relief issues and continue to press for the rapid and full implementation of the heavily indebted poor countries initiative. However, debt relief alone cannot guarantee a permanent exit from unsustainable debt and poverty. That is why we are promoting greater effectiveness in the delivery of aid, more open markets for exports from developing countries, investment, and an increase in development assistance.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that full reply. He is right to say that it will be some time before governments can spend as much on health and education as, for example, on the servicing of debt. However, does the Minister accept that there are unrealistic forecasts on which debt sustainability is based? For Mozambique, there is a forecast of 16 per cent export growth per annum, which is almost unobtainable. Such forecasts take little account of emergencies such as the floods that have been experienced and the effect of HIV/AIDS. I hope that the Government can give some assurance that such factors are taken into account.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, is right. It is true that, in several
888
countries, there are over-optimistic assessments of the possibility of increased exports. If we consider the fact that the world aid budget is of the order of £50 billion a year, while developed countries spend £350 billion a year in agricultural subsidies, we can see how much scope there is for improvement through world trade.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it has been suggested in the press that the food crisis in Zimbabwe is entirely due to the policy of the Zimbabwe Government. Has the Minister any information on that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is seldom that there is a single, simple explanation for such an issue. The food crisis in Zimbabwe is partially the result of government policies—but only partially.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister accept that many of us strongly admire the international lead that the British Government consistently give on debt? Does he also agree, however, that if any policy on third world development is to be successful, one of the most crucial issues is the quality of governance in those societies?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Gordon Brown and Clare Short will be glad to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has just said; it is undoubtedly true. When we talk about the effectiveness of aid, what we are discussing is whether it actually reaches the people most in need—the people in poverty. That is, of course, an issue of governance.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the HIV/AIDS crisis presents problems on a new scale? For example, Zambia spends three times as much on debt relief as on health, yet 13 per cent of Zambia's children are AIDS orphans and 20 per cent of the adult population live with HIV/AIDS. Does the Minister agree that the crisis has reached the point at which we should be discussing, not debt relief, but debt cancellation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the problem with all the countries is that poverty is not necessarily the same as indebtedness. For example, Bangladesh is extremely poor—one of the poorest countries in the world—but has little international debt. Debt cancellation is not the way forward. The way forward, as I said in my Answer and as the Government say in their international financing facility, is a clear and binding commitment of additional resources by donors. That may be associated with debt relief but not necessarily so.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, can the Minister elaborate on the measures that Her Majesty's Government propose to enhance the HIPC initiative and offset debt caused by unforeseen emergencies such as the terrible drought and the floods in Mozambique several years ago?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as has been said, the United Kingdom Government are in the lead.

889
Internationally, an additional £1 billion a year has been allocated for the purpose. As, I hope, I made clear, the problems do not arise because the HIPC initiative is not working. They arise because, at the end of the HIPC process, as a result of the slow-down in the international economy and the collapse of commodity prices, countries that have been through the HIPC initiative are still in a position of unsustainable debt.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, the noble Lord says that the enhanced HIPC initiative is working. However, is it not the case that 15 countries have not even reached their decision-point? In other words, a third of heavily indebted poor countries have received no debt relief under the initiative. Does the noble Lord agree that there must be a radical revision of the terms of the initiative, so that more countries can qualify for debt relief in 2003?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the HIPC initiative is not set in stone. It is possible for additional countries to enter HIPC, and it is also true that the conditions—completion dates, for example—can be changed. I have tried to persuade the House that there are huge problems that are not simply questions of the composition of the HIPC initiative; they are more widespread than that.

Zimbabwe
3.36 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
What financial support they are giving to Zimbabwe in the present food crisis.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, the Department for International Development has pledged over £47 million for humanitarian assistance for Zimbabwe since September 2001. Some £38 million has been spent. DfID funds food purchases and supports non-food relief efforts, including nutritional surveillance, emergency drugs and support to agricultural recovery. Funding is directed through NGOs and UN organisations. No financial support is provided through Zimbabwe government systems.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. It was good to learn of the amount of financial support that is going to Zimbabwe. As the Minister is aware, the situation is exceedingly serious, with 6.7 million Zimbabweans under a serious threat.
On 3rd December, the United States Government voted 100 million dollars, one of the largest grants ever. Does the Minister judge that the aid that we put into Zimbabwe is commensurate with that? Can she say more about the steps that Her Majesty's
890
Government take to ensure that the aid that goes to Zimbabwe does not go simply to ZANU-PF supporters?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the United Kingdom is the second largest bilateral donor to Zimbabwe with regard to the humanitarian crisis. My right honourable friend Clare Short made it clear in the other place that we would consider other ways of continuing to support the people of Zimbabwe. We also contribute to the aid given by the European Union.
I must make it clear that there are two different channels for humanitarian relief. Two-thirds of that relief goes through the Zimbabwe Government; one third through humanitarian organisations and, in particular, the World Food Programme. Our aid is channelled through the World Food Programme, and we are confident that it is not being diverted.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, did the Minister notice the comments made by Comrade Jabulani Sibanda, the regional chairman of ZANU-PF in Bulawayo, on the need for greater transparency in maize distribution? The Sunday Times reported his allegation that maize was,
"used by the 'big fish' to spin money".
In other words, the proceeds are being diverted into the pockets of senior politicians. Although I applaud the Government's response to the humanitarian crisis in southern Africa, is the noble Baroness satisfied that there is sufficiently rigorous independent auditing of the distribution of food and sufficient reporting of the alleged illegal diversion and profiteering that is taking place?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I repeat: through the Grain Marketing Board, which has a monopoly, the Zimbabwe Government are responsible for tackling two-thirds of the crisis. The other third is handled through international organisations and the World Food Programme. We are absolutely confident about the auditing processes in place for our contribution, which goes through the World Food Programme and NGOs.
In a recent by-election, there were allegations that World Food Programme resources were being diverted. That allegation has been investigated and the World Food Programme stopped distribution for a time. With respect to the operations of the Government of Zimbabwe through the Grain Marketing Board, we have no control over that. It is significant that their own people are now making complaints about lack of transparency.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it in any way sensible to give money to the Government of Zimbabwe, who are the cause of the problem? Is it not true that that must be wrong? Is the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, aware—actually she cannot be—that an acquaintance of mine went on holiday to Zimbabwe? As he crossed the border from South Africa, the South African border guard said, "I will bet you that by the end of this evening you will have seen dead bodies".

891
And he did. He saw people lying dead of starvation by the side of the road. Does the Minister agree that those dead bodies were directly caused by the Government of Zimbabwe, and that to give the Government of Zimbabwe just one groat is criminally irresponsible?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, perhaps I have not made myself clear. We are not giving the Government of Zimbabwe any money. We are concerned about the plight of the people in Zimbabwe—nearly half the population is facing food shortages. We are supporting feeding programmes. In November, we fed up to 1 million children through the World Food Programme and NGOs. None of that money is going through the World Food Programme. The World Food Programme has not received 100 per cent of the money that it needs, partially due to donors' concerns about the behaviour of the Government of Zimbabwe.
Secondly, we are extremely concerned about the possibilities of famine and death in Zimbabwe. An assessment is being carried out now and we shall have the results next week. We believe that the situation will become much worse and that we must do all we can to ensure that people are fed.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, most people who have studied the Zimbabwean situation are grateful for the work done by the Minister and her department. Is the Minister aware that it is impossible to deal with Zimbabwe without having the greatest of respect for its people? We think very badly indeed of the Government of Zimbabwe. But whatever we think, we cannot allow those feelings of distaste to prevent us providing the fullest possible aid to those people who so desperately need it.
I would like to get my retaliation in first. I recall many of those people chastising the Government for not being strong enough on the cricket match in Zimbabwe taking precisely the opposite view and being bitterly opposed to sanctions on South Africa, especially sporting sanctions. Some of those people are on the other side of the House today.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree. It is an irony that we are spending £47 million in humanitarian assistance in Zimbabwe. It is money which could have gone to development of that country if it had a different government who were committed to promoting the interests of the country and its people.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, it is important that good governance, human rights and the rule of law should be re-established in Zimbabwe, without which the food crisis will get even worse. What steps are Her Majesty's Government taking to persuade the African leaders, including the President of South Africa, Mr Mbeki, to live up to their undertakings under the NePAD and African union treaties to ensure that those human rights and related matters are observed?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, noble Lords will know that our policy is aimed at ensuring a stable and secure
892
Zimbabwe. We shall continue to work with our partners in Africa and other parts of the world in respect of the breakdown of the rule of law, the harassment of the opposition, and the falling away of human rights which have occurred in Zimbabwe. We shall do everything we can to restore the rule of law and human rights. Noble Lords will appreciate and understand that where there is a leader and members of a government who care nothing for their own people—we are seeing the results of that with half of the population needing food aid—it is very difficult.
Lord Judd: My Lords, with reference to the questions by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, would my noble friend agree that while effective government is the long-term answer, as women, men and children are starving, and dying of starvation, the challenge becomes all the greater, not less, to increase our assistance to ordinary people being abused by their own government, and to find ways in which the food can effectively get through? Is there a fuller part that the non-governmental organisations could be playing in this role?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I believe that the NGOs are playing an extremely full role. Noble Lords will know that some NGOs themselves have come under attack in Zimbabwe. We must do all that we can to work with them and support their work—not just the international NGOs, but also Zimbabwean NGOs, some of which are committed to reporting the many human rights abuses in that country—as well as supporting the population with respect to food aid. We shall continue to do what we can.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, is the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, aware of reports by Didymus Mutasa, a senior official of ZANU-PF, that Zimbabwe would be,
"better off with only 6 million people"?
Does she agree that selective starvation of political opponents now seems to be the official policy of the Government of Zimbabwe? What are the Government doing to ensure that food aid distributed by Zimbabwe's Grain Marketing Board, which she mentioned earlier, is distributed on the basis of need and not party politics?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am aware of those comments. We are not sure whether those comments have actually been made, but I have seen the reporting of them. If those comments have been made they are appalling. I repeat what I said earlier. We have no control on food aid going through the Grain Marketing Board, over which the Government of Zimbabwe have the monopoly. None of the UK or other donor resources is going through that channel. Our money is going through the World Food Programme and other NGOs.

Business of the House: Standing Order 41
3.47 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 41 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on 14th January to allow the Motion standing in the name of the Baroness Harris of Richmond to be taken before the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Grenfell.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Bill [H.L.]
3.48 p.m.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Implementation of future revisions to CFE Treaty]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Rawlings: I shall be brief. The Bill confers a power to make further amendments to the 1991 Act should they be required to implement future amendments to the CFE Treaty. I raised this issue during our Second Reading debate. I wish to express my concern that any such amendments will not be addressed in primary legislation. Is this not yet another example of the Government removing business from the Floor of the House where, quite rightly, important matters can receive your Lordships' full attention and input?
As the CFE Treaty deals with sensitive and important issues, I should be grateful if the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, would explain why the Government have taken the decision to implement any future changes by order.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: When we discussed the issue at Second Reading, I indicated to your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government had sent out a memorandum on this subject to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I also indicated that I wanted to listen carefully to the committee's views and in the light of those views to consider the best way forward.
894
The noble Baroness may know that the committee's view is that:
"In view of the limited nature of the power, and that fact that it will be subject to affirmative procedure, we consider that this level of delegation and control is appropriate".
Therefore, I cannot agree with the noble Baroness that this is an example of the Government removing business that should properly be dealt with on the Floor of the House. Perhaps I may point out to her that we have consulted, as we should have done, with the appropriate and expert committee on the matter and it believes that Her Majesty's Government are adopting the correct procedure.
I hope that in the light not only of my assurances but of those of the committee, she will feel able to withdraw her opposition to Clause 2 standing part of the Bill.
Lord Blaker: As I was the Member who first raised the issue of the Explanatory Notes with which we had been provided before Second Reading, I want to thank the noble Baroness for providing additional Explanatory Notes. They were extremely helpful and entirely met our needs, which is why I did not take up her further offer of a meeting.
As regards the point raised by my noble friend, I am not entirely happy with the views of the Select Committee. I would have preferred not to have the provision relating to delegated legislation in the Bill in its current form. However, as the Select Committee has taken that view, it is difficult to argue too much against it. If it were going to give an affirmative answer to this part of the Bill, I would have preferred it to have limited that more narrowly. I would have preferred it to keep the answer expressly to the point, rather than making the wider comment that:
"There is in principle no reason why there should not be delegation of the function of implementing an international agreement".
I believe that that comment is too wide, especially when we are talking about such an important, sensitive and dangerous subject as arms control. I hope that the committee does not pursue its practice of expressing its recommendations in a sense that is wider than what is necessary to meet the problems before it.
Furthermore, I would also like to support the necessity to make affirmative resolutions, which the committee did not do in its report. That is something of an oversight.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: Given that the provision is subject to an affirmative resolution, we on these Benches support the Government. We believe that at a time when the international community and the international institutions are enforcing on Iraq the principle of inspection, it is important that we accept the principle of inspection of military installations in Britain. The CFE Treaty is of limited importance compared with some other arms control treaties, but it nevertheless enshrines the principle of inspection.
I recall previous debates in this House when Members on the Conservative Benches raised the question whether Britain should be subject to the same

895
level of inspection as some other states. We on these Benches would reinforce our view that international law must apply equally to all. On that basis, we support the Government and do not support the Conservative Front Bench.
Baroness Rawlings: I thank the noble Baroness for her answer. I support my noble friend Lord Blaker and his views. At the moment, I will not ask the view of the Committee but may return to the matter on Report.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Baroness Rawlings moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 20, at end insert ", which shall not be before all States Parties have complied fully with the provisions of the CFE Treaty and of the CFE Final Act"
The noble Baroness said: The Minister has explained carefully that the Government will ratify the adapted CFE Treaty only "when the time is right", and I am grateful for that. It does seem, however, rather unusual to me that your Lordships' House should be considering legislation when there is no prospect of commencement until certain states parties have complied fully with the provisions of the treaty to which the Bill relates. I accept that the Government, along with the other NATO allies, are urging Russia to resolve its problems in Georgia and Moldova.
I should be interested to know, however, why we are discussing this Bill now, before the Government are prepared to ratify the adapted treaty. Can the Minister explain to the Committee the current position in Russia with regard to these territories and whether there have been any developments since we discussed the subject last? The commitments contained in the CFE Final Act are of fundamental importance and I should be most grateful for clarification on this point. I beg to move.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The issue of when to ratify the treaty was raised at Second Reading. The amendment proposed by the noble Baroness would limit the Government's scope on when we should ratify the treaty by providing that it should not happen until such time as all states parties have complied fully with the provisions of the CFE Treaty and the CFE Final Act.
The Government believe that the amendment takes a sledge hammer to crack a nut. Everyone in NATO agreed that swift fulfilment of the outstanding Istanbul commitments on Georgia and Moldova are necessary. The noble Baroness asked: why legislate now? It is because we want to be ready to ratify as soon as we are able. The fulfilment of those outstanding commitments will create the conditions for allies and other states parties to move forward on the ratification of the adapted treaty, which I believe is one that we in your Lordships' House all broadly support.
Let me be clear. The noble Baroness is right in saying that the United Kingdom is not ready to ratify the adapted treaty. However, I repeat what the then Secretary of State said in Istanbul: that we hope to
896
ratify the treaty early but that the time at which we do so will depend on the level of all parties' compliance within the agreed limits. That was reinforced by the NATO position agreed at Reykjavik on 14th and 15th May 2002. There, in the concluding statement, NATO agreed:
"We can envisage ratification of the adapted CFE Treaty only in the context of full compliance by all states parties with agreed treaty limits and consistent with the commitments contained in the CFE Final Act".
The noble Baroness asked me to bring the Committee up to date with the state of play on the Istanbul commitment. Perhaps I may do so briefly. Russia has complied with its treaty limits on equipment in the flank; that is, in Chechnya. It has removed the treaty-limited equipment, which we discussed at Second Reading, from Moldova and Georgia. Furthermore, Russia has disbanded its base at Vaziani, Georgia.
However, although Russia has removed its TLE from the base at Abkhazia, legal transfer of the base to Georgia remains to be done, as does verification of the closure. Russia and Georgia have yet to agree a time-scale for the withdrawal of Russian stationed forces at the bases at Batumi and Akhalkalaki. Russian forces also remain in Transdniestria, Moldova, guarding the ammunition dump at Colbasna.
I hope that that briefly brings Members of the Committee up to date with the various states in all the territories where I know the noble Baroness has had concern. Perhaps I may point out to her that the principle on which Her Majesty's Government are operating is one of host nation consent. The views of Georgia and Moldova will be of key importance in deciding whether the conditions for ratification are in place.
The NATO statement was very carefully crafted. The context of this is enormously important, as I hope my remarks about Moldova and Georgia have made clear. We cannot envisage every eventuality at this stage. We cannot know how our allies and other cosignatories may wish to deal with the outstanding issues I have outlined to the Committee. However, the principles on which we are operating are clear. It would be unreasonable to put my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary into a straitjacket on this issue—a straitjacket in which I hope none of the other Foreign Secretaries with whom my right honourable friend is dealing would find themselves—and to try, in a sense, to second guess the carefully crafted and negotiated wording in the NATO statement.
Were the amendment to be passed, it could potentially put the UK in the position of preventing the entry into force of the adapted CFE Treaty if we were not able to ratify at a point where negotiations led us to believe that ratification was the right position to take.
I understand the noble Baroness's misgivings. While the wording she has brought forward looks similar to the NATO wording it is not the same. The NATO wording stresses the importance of the context of the negotiations and we believe that it is enormously

897
important that my right honourable friend has the ability to negotiate on these issues in the same way as his other colleagues.
Baroness Rawlings: I thank the noble Baroness for that detailed answer and congratulate her on her mastery of those very difficult names. We do not want to put the Foreign Secretary into a straitjacket or to delay ratification. However, we are still worried about the situation in Moldova and Georgia and will come back to this issue on Report. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Convention on the Future of Europe
4.2 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)rose to move, That this House takes note of the Convention on the Future of Europe.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I begin by emphasising how pleased I am that we are having this debate today. The 30th report of your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Union on The Convention on the Future of Europe provides a comprehensive, yet succinct, introduction to the work of the convention. Today's debate will provide a timely update to that report as we examine the wide range of issues that the convention has considered over the past 10 months. The number of noble Lords who are to speak today is clear evidence of your Lordships' enduring interest in all things European. I very much welcome this Parliament's commitment to follow closely the discussions in the convention.
The Secretary of State for Wales is the Government's representative on the Future of Europe Convention. I have the honour of being the Government's alternate representative on the convention. I am in very good company because the House has been well represented by my noble friend Lord Tomlinson, who participated in the complementary competencies and simplification group, and by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, who sits on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench today. It is in my capacity as alternate representative rather than as a Minister in the Lord Chancellor's Department that I address the House today.
The architecture of the European Union was originally designed, more than half a century ago. for the six founding members of the European Coal and Steel Community. With successive rounds of enlargement that structure is creaking, despite various efforts to cover the cracks. The next wave of enlargement will see 10 new members join the Union on 1st May 2004. We hope that others will follow before the decade is out. The enlargement will stretch
898
the Union's institutional structure further still. Without reform, it could push the Union to breaking point.
Heads of state and government explicitly recognised this situation a little more than a year ago, in December 2001, at the Laeken European Council. They also acknowledged the growing sense of disengagement and disillusionment among citizens— not only in the United Kingdom but across all member states. This was evident in the falling levels of participation in elections for the European Parliament and manifested itself in disappointing results in referendums on the Union in a number of member states.
It was therefore recognised that another intergovernmental conference would be needed. To prepare the way, leaders agreed to establish a convention to provide for dialogue and consultation with a wider group of interlocutors than ever before. The convention's task would be to design a new political architecture for the future of the Union.
The convention began its work in February last year. It is a unique creature. For the first time ever, it offers a forum within which people from diverse backgrounds can debate options and proposals for making the Union more effective and more efficient. There is also a civic forum, which gives civil society an opportunity to present ideas to the convention.
The convention started with a listening phase, followed swiftly by more detailed consideration of issues in 11 working groups, all of which have reported save for the final group on social issues, which is due to report back to the plenary in early February.
With the new year comes a shift of emphasis in the convention. Discussions are set to focus on institutional issues. Considerable work will need to be done if meat is to be put on the bones of the skeleton draft constitutional treaty that the convention's chairman, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, presented to members at the plenary session in October 2002.
It is increasingly clear that a key result of the convention will be the drafting of a new constitutional treaty for the European Union. This will be a major achievement. The Government have made clear their position on the idea of a constitution for Europe. For anyone who has not yet done so, I thoroughly recommend that they read my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary's illuminating article in the Economist in October last year and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister's speech in Cardiff at the end of November.
The Government support the idea of a constitution for the European Union. A constitution would help all of us to understand better what the European Union does and how it does it. It would result in a more effectively organised Union that would be better able to deliver practical benefits to Europe's citizens. It would also help to dispel some of the mystery that surrounds Brussels and allow all of us to grasp better the opportunities and practical benefits that the Union can offer. That in turn would help to strengthen the Union and make it more responsive to people's needs.

899
But we do not support a constitution at any price. Whatever text is agreed must improve on the status quo. For us, that means a text that is clear and concise; a text that sets out what the EU is, what it does, and who does it. That means clarity on where power and responsibility lie. We must define more clearly those areas where the Union has exclusive power; we must know where powers are shared between the EU and member states; and we must understand when national policies hold sway.
That does not mean that we need a fixed list of responsibilities, which some people refer to as a "catalogue of competencies". That would limit the flexibility that has served the Union so well in responding to the varying demands of its members and adapting to global changes. Rather, we believe that clarity can be achieved by a simple statement of principle that establishes clear lines between what the Union does and where member states' responsibilities lie.
The draft constitutional treaty that Valéry Giscard d'Estaing presented to the convention in October provides a good basis for achieving our aims for a more succinct and easier to understand text. There are many positive things about the skeleton. For example, it is based on an assumption of the EU as a union of sovereign states. This reflects the status quo. It does not lead us down the route of a federal superstate. It incorporates the idea—which we fully endorse—of having a full-time, elected president (or chair) of the European Council to guide that institution in its strategic overview and implementation of the Union's activities. And it includes the proposal—which we have strongly supported—for the creation of a new mechanism to enable national parliamentarians to monitor and enforce compliance with the principle of subsidiarity.
But Valéry Giscard d'Estaing's text is not yet ideal. There are things in it we do not like. As the discussions on an EU constitution progress over the coming weeks and months, we shall be working hard—engaging other members of the convention—to ensure that the final draft meets our ideas for what a constitution of the EU should be. That means a text that is clear, that is concise, and that clarifies what the EU is, what it does, and how it does it.
This Government's approach to the convention has not been a traditional one. In some ways this has caused surprise. We have not hung back, warily following a path that we have let others carve. We have been fully engaged and constructive, talking to other representatives at the convention and building alliances with like-minded individuals and member states. We have been prepared to listen and have encouraged others to think imaginatively when sketching out a future design for the Union. We have rather taken aback many of our interlocutors with this novel British approach. But I believe that we are having an impact and making progress across the whole range of issues discussed at the convention.
900
Take the charter of fundamental rights, for example. This is an area of interest for many of your Lordships. and I welcome this opportunity to say a few words about where we stand. I was the United Kingdom's representative on the working group that looked at the charter. I must confess that it was not the easiest task I have ever undertaken. But we have made progress.
There was no desire within the group to open up the text of the substantive charter articles themselves to renegotiation. I am glad about that, for it would have been to open Pandora's Box. Our proposal—which I am glad to say was taken up by the group—was that we should focus instead on the charter's general provisions: the so-called horizontal articles.
The idea was that we could strengthen the rules for interpreting the charter so as to overcome the lack of legal clarity and security which some of us saw in the broad drafting of the substantive articles themselves. I am very pleased to be able to report that, in the end, we achieved consensus within the group on a series of amendments to the charter's horizontal articles to help make the charter as a whole more suitable for legal status. We also agreed—this is an important point— that the commentary, the detailed legal clarifications of each and every individual article, should be further supplemented and published with the charter to ensure that lawyers and all of us better understand what is intended by the drafters.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, will the Minister give way? I am grateful for her explanation, but can she explain whether what she has said corresponds with what the former Minister, Mr Vaz, said; namely, that the charter was no more significant than the Beano—with the strong implication that it had no legally binding consequences? Is what the noble Baroness said consistent with that?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is absolutely consistent. The charter remains what it is. At the moment it is a political document and no more. The noble Lord will know that even the Beano can be referred to in any court in England and Wales or elsewhere if it proves helpful to the judicial mind in determining a particular issue.
I do not claim that the working group recommendations answer every question and concern about the charter. No final decisions have been taken. That will be for the Prime Minister at the intergovernmental conference that will follow the conclusion of the convention. Departments are currently considering to what extent the changes so far proposed would resolve the legal and practical problems that we envisaged with full incorporation of the charter. I would not wish to pre-empt that process.
But we achieved major steps forward. They have come about as a result of explaining, listening, proposing and negotiating. That is the way to make progress and to have influence. Both my noble friend Lord Tomlinson and the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, are evidence of that.
The importance of being actively engaged in the convention has also been demonstrated by the UK parliamentary representative, Ms Gisela Stuart. Her

901
chairmanship of the working group on the role of national parliaments generated overwhelming support for the need for national parliaments to play a bigger role in the Union. That means national parliaments getting more involved in EU decision-making processes, and at an earlier stage. It means improving national scrutiny procedures in all national parliaments, so that governments can be held to account better for the decisions they take in Brussels. And it means developing the links and networks that exist between national and European parliamentarians.
We pushed the need for subsidiarity to be monitored at a political level. We advocated that the right political level was that of national parliamentarians. I believe that we made considerable progress in the working group where UK interests were represented by my right honourable friend Peter Hain. We would have preferred the creation of an ad hoc body to monitor compliance with subsidiarity. In the end, the consensus in the working group settled on a lighter early warning mechanism. The important achievement for us, in the working group, was getting a broad consensus in support of the principle that national parliamentarians should review EU proposals and make an ex ante political judgment on whether action was being taken at the right level.
While improving enforcement of the subsidiarity principle may not be the principal topic of conversation in many homes and pubs across Britain, it is clear that crime and immigration are at the top of people's agendas. I sat on the convention working group that looked at justice and home affairs. I believe that, here again, we have secured agreement to a final report that meets many of our own ideas.
Asylum and immigration are, by definition, international. To deal with these issues effectively, we have to work and co-operate with others. That is why we have advocated a common EU asylum and immigration policy. Unfortunately, we have not made as much progress at the EU level as we would have liked. That is in part due to the decision-making process that prevails. So it is logical that we have supported a move away from unanimity in these areas. The introduction of qualified majority voting for asylum and immigration matters will enable us to make the decisions that we need to make, to ensure a fully operational and functional common EU asylum and immigration policy. That will benefit Britain, and it will benefit the British people.
Hand-in-hand with a more effective common asylum and immigration policy is the need for stronger external borders for the Union. This is inextricably linked with greater co-operation between member state police forces and judicial systems. The trafficking of humans is international. To tackle it effectively we must confront it at a European level. The same is true for drugs. But this does not mean the creation of a single legal system. I do not believe that that would be the most effective way forward. Rather, we want to see mutual recognition of each other's systems. I am happy to report that the working group's report
902
recommends just that—mutual recognition forming the basis of co-operation across the Union in these areas.
I have mentioned that we support moves away from unanimity in the areas of asylum and illegal immigration. But a wholesale shift towards qualified majority voting on all issues is not the way forward. We have made very clear our view that taxation and social security, for example, must remain matters for national governments and parliaments. So, too, must foreign and defence policy. We are pleased that the external actions working group considered practical ways to improve the effectiveness of CFSP and to make the EU's external actions more coherent. This included looking at ways to improve coherence between the Commission and the Council, and at how to improve management of the EU's development programmes, with a greater focus on poverty reduction. There was also consideration of how to bolster the role of the High Representative on CESP and to improve financing for this policy area. For the most part, the discussions went in our direction, and we were able to make clear that any move towards a single legal personality for the EU would have to respect the intergovernmental nature of CFSP.
This is a crucial time for the future of European security and defence policy. Berlin Plus is in place, and the EU is on the verge of taking on its first military operations. The EU should not be in the business of setting out a territorial defence guarantee. We need to focus our energies and resources on the ESDP challenges we face, not duplicate what NATO offers partners who wish to be part of a collective defence alliance.
As for social policy, the working group has only just begun its work. Peter Hain is playing an active role as a member of that group. We believe strongly that the focus should be on social exclusion and the creation of the jobs that are the best weapon against such exclusion. That agenda must be preferable to the alternative, which is more regulation. That would stifle the European economy and run counter to the Lisbon economic reform agenda, of which we have been such staunch advocates.
As I noted at the beginning, the convention is now moving on to examine institutional questions. I am conscious of having taken some time to set out the Government's position on many of the issues being discussed at the convention. So, to allow your Lordships to comment on and debate the issue before us, I shall keep my comments on institutional reform brief.
Some have mischievously suggested that this Government is looking to enhance the role of the Council to the detriment of other EU institutions. That is absolutely untrue. It is the balance of power and responsibilities between the three EU institutions—the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament— which makes the Union work. The answer to making Europe more effective and efficient is not to strengthen one side of the triangle. That would weaken the institutional base of the Union. The only viable option must be to

903
improve the functioning of all three institutions. That is why we are considering ways to strengthen the Commission's powers of initiative and enforcement. And that is why we are looking at how to make the European Parliament more effective and better able to hold the Commission to account.
This Government firmly believe that Britain's place is in the heart of a strong Europe. The European Union has a poor reputation in some quarters for being slow to react, or not being sufficiently open, transparent, effective or efficient. The need to reform the Union is no secret, but it is best reformed from within, from a position of strength. That is why it is vital that Britain be a committed member of the Union, actively engaged in the debate on the Union's future.
The convention offers us a timely opportunity to look at the kind of Union we want. It provides a forum for discussing openly how we can achieve the reforms we deem necessary. The convention has made more progress than most sceptics thought possible. The discussions are, for the most part, along the lines that we wish to see develop. We have not won support for all our ideas. No-one has. That is the nature of debate. But where our ideas have not taken root, we are working hard to persuade others with convincing and constructive arguments.
I look forward to hearing what noble Lords have to say today in what I am sure will be a frank, candid exchange of views. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Convention on the Future of Europe.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
4.25 p.m.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I commend to the House the Select Committee's report on the convention. However, with your Lordships' indulgence, I shall speak a little more broadly than that. I speak today in my capacity as chairman of the Select Committee on the European Union and as successor to my most able predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. The committee had earlier indicated that it wanted to have the opportunity to hear the Government's views on these important issues. The committee and I are grateful to the Government for meeting that request with today's debate.
As chairman of the committee I feel bound to be careful in what I say because, for the most part, but not exclusively, I shall be speaking on behalf of it. We have just heard an impressive opening speech from the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, speaking in her capacity as the Government's alternate representative on the convention, a function that she is discharging with the distinction with which we always associate her. At the close of my remarks, I wish to react briefly to what she said. I trust your Lordships and, in particular, members of the committee will allow me that latitude.
I hope that this will not be the last occasion we have to debate these issues. The Select Committee's agreed view is that there should be further debates as the work
904
of the convention continues all the way to the delivery of the final document to the June Council at Thessaloniki and after that as the governments prepare for the 2004 inter-governmental conference.
If the convention had turned out to be just the harmless talking shop that many had predicted at its launch, I doubt we would now be so anxious to discuss its output at regular intervals. But, since getting down to work last February, it has demonstrated that it really can deliver. Monsieur Giscard d'Estaing's much derided comparison of the convention's task with that of the Philadelphia Convention 1787 is beginning to seem a rather less fanciful exaggeration than it did a year ago.
Given the authority, expertise and political weight of the members who are hammering out the recommendations for reform, most would now agree that it will be difficult for European leaders to stray far from them when agreeing the treaty. That is why it is right that we, as a parliamentary chamber, should take the work of the convention as seriously as we do.
Your Lordships' Select Committee has already been monitoring the work of the convention. We have heard evidence twice from the UK parliamentary representatives on the convention: Gisela Stuart and David Heathcoat-Amory from another place, and the noble Lords, Lord Tomlinson and Lord MacLennan of Rogart, whom I am pleased to see in their places today. They have been doing splendid work in the convention, and we look forward to their contributions to this debate. The work of the convention was also the subject of questions that we put to Peter Hain when, as Minister for Europe, he gave evidence to us last July following the Seville European Council.
Before the Summer Recess, the Select Committee produced a short report for information, which is before your Lordships today. Of course, quite a lot of water has passed under the bridge since we were taking evidence and putting together that report. Its aim was modest: to spark interest in the work of the convention and to encourage broader and more substantive debate in this House on this milestone in the development of the European Union. It made only a limited number of recommendations, which related primarily to our work here in Westminster. They were: first, that this debate should take place—and it is; secondly, that the convention website should be enhanced—it has been; thirdly, that there should be further debate once the convention has completed its work—I have reason to hope there will be; fourthly, that the national parliamentarians on the convention should operate cohesively—which they appear to be doing; and, fifthly, that Members of this House should participate in the joint Standing Committee—which your Lordships have been doing to good effect. That these few recommendations are being or have been acted on is a cause for some satisfaction. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, who chaired the inquiry. As his successor, may I be as fortunate.
Now, of course, our work goes on. The reports from each of the convention's working groups will be the subject of reports from our committee to this House in

905
the coming weeks. Some are being considered by the sub-committees. Some, such as those on subsidiarity and on the role of national parliaments, will be considered by the Select Committee itself.
There is one further area in which our committee has been active in matters relating to the convention. We have recently taken a hard look at parliamentary scrutiny of European legislation and we published a report just before the Christmas Recess. Some of its proposals are addressed to the Select Committee itself, some to the House, some to the Government and some to the convention, but all are designed to strengthen and enhance the role of national parliaments in scrutinising EU legislation. The role of national parliaments has emerged as a key issue at the convention. I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, in paying tribute to Gisela Stuart, who, by all accounts, has chaired Working Group 4 with consummate skill.
As a House of Parliament, we are now, as a result of the convention's work in this area, on the edge of a step change in our role in the dynamics of the European Union. That is an exciting and very challenging prospect. Of course, we can never hope—nor, indeed, should we ever expect—to be co-legislators with the European Parliament, but we have an increasingly significant role to play and one that can help address the alarming gulf of incomprehension, again referred to by the noble Baroness in her opening remarks, which still separates the citizen of the Union from the institutions and individuals who govern. To play that role is not merely a means to reassert the authority of Parliament—which is important enough—it is a fundamental constitutional and democratic obligation, which we should do our utmost to meet. Without blowing our trumpet too loudly, I have to say that I am hopeful that we will not be found wanting, not least because the range and depth of expertise reflected in the membership of your Lordships' House adds hugely to Parliament's capacity to carry out an effective job of scrutiny.
Our just-published report on scrutiny covered a number of matters not relevant to this debate, relating to how, we as a House go about our work. We will have a separate debate on that report in due course. However, among the report's 68 recommendations, four important conclusions are relevant to today's debate. since they are addressed to the convention. Allow me to mention them, because, although all but one of the working groups has now reported to the plenary, there is still time and opportunity for some fine tuning.
First, greater openness in the Council, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, referred, will facilitate faster scrutiny by national parliaments. We have high hopes that that will be the case, in light of the convention's strong recommendation that the Council should act in public when it is exercising its legislative functions. I am glad that our representatives have pushed hard on that in the convention. Abolishing the six-monthly presidencies could also help by avoiding the end-of-term rush to decisions, provided that other artificial deadlines are not built in. Working Group 9's proposals on the simplification of instruments and procedures would also simplify scrutiny.
906
Secondly, the convention should consider a revision of the co-decision procedure to allow greater opportunity for national parliamentary scrutiny. When conciliation is triggered, the relevant documents from the Commission, the Parliament and the Council should be made public and submitted to national parliaments, which should have four weeks to consider them before the conciliation committee can meet.
Thirdly, the convention should consider whether the European Parliament's procedures could be strengthened in three ways: by setting up an equivalent of our committees that scrutinise, or will scrutinise. statutory instruments; by reinforcing the work of their existing committees in scrutinising comitology legislation; and by considering a procedure analogous to our negative and affirmative resolution procedure.
Fourthly and finally, scrutiny of the impact of legislation would be greatly enhanced in our view if the European Parliament was obliged to produce a cost analysis of the effect of its own proposed amendments to EU law. We urge that this be introduced by treaty amendment.
In conclusion, I shall take a moment to pose a few questions arising out of the opening speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, to which perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, will be able to respond when she winds up. They relate not so much to what she said, but to some of the things that she did not say. There were a few dogs, so to speak, that did not bark in the night. I shall draw attention to one or two of them.
With respect to Britain's efforts to get its partners in the working group on social affairs to adopt a new agenda on social policy based on measures to promote worker employability, are Her Majesty's Government satisfied that a proper balance can be ensured between full employment measures and high standards of worker protection?
Secondly, with reference to the proposal to have the European Parliament elect the Commission president, with the Council confirming that election, the Prime Minister said in his Cardiff speech:
"We must avoid at all costs turning the election of its president into a partisan wrangle or allowing the Commission to become a prisoner of the parliamentary majority".
In light of that, would Her Majesty's Government support Signor Prodi's proposal that the president be elected by a two-thirds majority and on a secret ballot?
Thirdly, what position are the Government taking on the principle of voluntary withdrawal from the Union—the so-called exit clause? Do they see the right to withdraw as providing members with the ability to exercise some gentle—or maybe not so gentle— blackmail? Do they agree with those who propose that failure to ratify the treaty should entail withdrawal from the Union?
Fourthly, do Her Majesty's Government believe that an Article 5-type solidarity clause would undermine EU relations with NATO?

907
Fifthly, with regard to Working Group 9's report on simplification of instruments and procedures, are Her Majesty's Government among those who would prefer to keep common strategies, joint actions and common positions in the foreign affairs field?
Finally, are Her Majesty's Government among those who favour an enhanced role for the Commission in defining the broad economic policy guidelines and in monitoring the growth and stability pact?
I apologise for the number of questions that I have posed, but they may be referred to by other noble Lords during the debate. I very much look forward to hearing the rest of the debate and I commend the Select Committee's report to your Lordships.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, we all owe very warm thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and to the European Union Committee for the report, which has triggered this important debate this afternoon, and for all the other work that the committee undertakes, including the prospect of some other very important reports to come. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, mentioned the report issued just before Christmas on the review of scrutiny proposals to give Parliament more powerful scrutiny of decisions made by European Union institutions. I hope we debate that very soon, because it is a very relevant part of the overall picture. The noble Lord is quite right about that.
While I give warm thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, for her very full and detailed coverage of what is going on in the convention, as she sees it, my thanks are marginally cooler towards the Government as a whole in relation to the opportunities that we have had and are having for looking at the crucial and fundamental decisions about our nation and our national interest that are daily being moulded and hardened by the work of the convention. I for one never had any doubts that the convention would assume this forward role. I know the convention report rightly reminds us that the decisions or proposals of the working groups, which are now all coming in, are not binding, but we all know from bitter experience that in this arena the non-binding has a habit of suddenly becoming binding. recommendations have a habit of becoming rules and draft proposals cease to be drafts and become unstoppable hurricanes of changes and we are then told that it is too late to alter anything.
Already six months have passed since the report of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, on the convention was published. We are now in January. Even in those six months, legions of concessions appear to have been made by representatives of Her Majesty's Government on issues that have become more or less settled—I believe they are much more settled than people appreciate—without any full and adequate debate here, except in the standing committee. I concede that that committee has been useful, but it is not an adequate substitute for full debate, considering the
908
enormous importance of the issues. That is not a good sign, and is certainly not a matter for thanks and congratulations.
In her speech, the noble Baroness asked for candid and frank comments. Perhaps I may begin by stating the fact, which, again, does not seem to have been appreciated by large parts of the media, let alone by the parliamentary institution here, that coming towards the British Government at the speed of an express train—and, indeed, towards all of us—is a dilemma that puts even the euro currency issue in the shade; namely, whether to submit to a full-blown, written, European constitution, binding on all EU members— to quote the Prime Minister, "a proper constitution for Europe".
In what I thought was rather a confused speech at Cardiff—one that I read most carefully but could not, quite frankly, understand fully—the Prime Minister referred to this as being a simple choice. I do not believe that it is: it is an immensely complicated and very important choice, and we would like ample time to address it. However, there is now very little time left. The months have gone by and, as the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, reminded us, the working group has nearly completed its work.
Although I am not sure that this was the original intention, the convention, under Valéry Giscard D'Estaing, has turned itself into a constitutional conference and final drafts are now beginning to circulate. These will be finalised by late spring, and a document will be ready for submission to the Council of Ministers. The plan is for everything to be agreed and settled before the end of the year. In fact, I have even heard talk that the intergovernmental conference of 2004 should be brought forward so that it can all be quickly signed and sealed.
As the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, rightly emphasised, such matters cannot be left to occasional debate. The contents of the new constitution in draft are truly revolutionary. According to the working group, defence and foreign policy are to be fully embraced in a single, expanded Union structure, with more QMV—that is, non-accountable decision-making—substantially extended in the CFSP area. Indeed, in contrast to what the noble Baroness said, there are proposals in that working group for QMV to be extended in CFSP issues that are in flat defiance of Article 23 of the Maastricht Treaty, which made a promise—one which, I suppose, we should not have believed—that QMV would not be extended in military or foreign policy areas.
As the noble Baroness conceded, QMV is to be extended in justice and home affairs issues, especially immigration policy. A mass of new social or positive rights are to be incorporated in the constitutional document. The Union is to have a legal personality that gives it full international status, and, in the view of many experts, that will almost certainly lead to the EU seeking a seat on the UN Security Council— which, presumably, would mean the end of the British, and French, tenure on that body.

909
Confronted with that momentum, which I concede has been considerable, the British authorities have had three choices. The first was just to go along with it all and hope that no one would notice what had been traded away. The second choice was to accept the new constitution, and its enabling treaty, as "inevitable" and try to amend and improve bits of it here and there, and the third was to fight the whole prospect tooth and nail.
Without saying so explicitly—indeed, I do not believe that I heard the noble Baroness say this—the Government appear to have chosen the second route of the three. They have decided that the pass is already sold, and that the best that can be hoped for is a watered-down version. Obviously, the noble Baroness described the latter in nicer terms, but that is what the aim appears to be. There is a draft British text prepared by the eminent Cambridge academic, Professor Alan Dashwood, which has been circulated in the convention as "the British text" by Mr Peter Hain, who is Secretary of State for Wales. He is our man at the conference, or the Government's man, although some would say that his track record of diplomatic finesse has not been too dazzling in other fields. However, there he is, and, for better or worse, he is putting forward the British draft constitution.
What is the purpose of the British draft? The argument, to which the noble Baroness returned today, appears to be that if we fight hard enough we shall preserve national sovereignties in the areas of foreign policy and defence, entrench the position of nation states within the Union, and prevent still more power drifting to Brussels—halting the so-called "competence creep" that worries many of your Lordships. As I understand it, that is the government line. As the implications trickle into the public debate, I have no doubt that we shall be told that it is a very strong line, and that any opposition to it is shortsighted, silly, anti-European, and so on. Clearly, we are used to those sweeping dismissals. It will be asserted that Britain is "winning" and that our national interests are being preserved, not eroded, by the new constitution and the treaty that will embody it.
This "thus far and no further" line might be sustainable if it were true. In reality, the suggestions for compromise about which the noble Baroness talked today have already been turned down flat in the proposals of the working group. We have the proposals—indeed, I sat up all night reading every word of the decisions and recommendations of the working group—and I am afraid that defence, security. and foreign affairs are already doomed, if that is the right word, to be fully embraced in a single Union structure, as are a slew of justice and home affairs issues.
I listened with great respect to the noble Baroness's assessment of the situation based on considerable experience, but I have to say that the new charter of fundamental rights will indeed be fully embedded in the constitution. That is what the working group's proposal says, but that is not quite what I understood
910
the noble Baroness to say—though she was a member of the group. It states that,
"all members of the Group either support strongly an incorporation of the Charter in a form which would make the Charter legally binding and give it constitutional status or would not rule out giving favourable consideration to such incorporation".
That is difficult to reconcile with the Beano theory, although the noble Baroness did a heroic job in trying to put the two in the same bracket. I do not believe that it will wash, or work. The Government will need to do much more explaining before we accept the arguments that we have so far heard. The legal personality issue also appears to have been settled, so that all the British worries about losing our seat at the UN Security Council have clearly been swept aside.
Then there is the smokescreen of arguments about power between the EU institutions, which is a fascinating debate: should the Commission have more control over foreign policy, or, alternatively. should it be the Council of Ministers or its Secretariat? How many new powers will be assigned to the European Parliament? Would that solve the democratic deficit? For those of us looking out from our national parliaments, all that looks a little like rearranging the chairs. Of course, the real issue is about power and who holds it. Although there is a lot of talk about re-involving national parliaments in EU decisions. not just in the convention but in previous treaties, and although some of the ideas put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, would achieve that aim, if one looks closely at the proposals in the new constitution one sees that very few of them will do anything other than divert more power to the central institutions of the EU and weaken the ties with the democratic political systems of the member states.
The subsidiarity "concession" from the group very ably chaired by Gisela Stuart MP has been trumpeted as a great concession to national parliaments. As the detail shows, however, the concession is a mouse All it allows is that, if a substantial number of national parliaments think that the Commission is intruding on national grounds, they can send it back and leave the Commission free to decide whether to push ahead as before, to amend it grudgingly, or whatever. So the ball is simply tossed back into the Commission's court; there is no real transfer of real power.
The scrutiny proposals which we are developing here and which the European Union Committee has already put into its report, which we shall debate, will help greatly, but they will not reverse that. The reality is that putting the charter at the centre of the proposed constitution does mean downgrading democratic political debate and handing over more power, not only to EU institutions, but to the courts that underpin a new constitutional order and the new European kritarchy—which is rule by judges and courts—and their decisions over larger parts of people's lives. If that is the way we are going, we should be able to choose and know that that is what is intended.

911
Communitising defence and foreign policy means more stultifying central bureaucracy at the very moment in history when more flexibility and national manoeuvrability are essential.
As for writing it all down in a new "simplified" constitutional treaty, not only does that go flatly against the British "unwritten" tradition—perhaps that does not matter anymore; that can be brushed aside—it actually defies what Sidney Low, in that wonderful book The Governance of England, called,
"the very essence of the English system of government"—
namely, that it is,
"in a constant state of development".
The new, simplified constitution is trying to put an almost pre-Copernican fixity in place of the evolution on which our constitutional arrangements have always depended.
Finally, and over and above even that, the whole project for a new European constitution is full of dangers which we should recognise and not brush aside for Europe itself. First, it is odd, I think, that there is an attempt to draft a new constitution just when 10 new members, and very independent members too, are about to join; it seems to be slightly a matter of the cart before the horse. However, it is also a deadly assault on the diversity, vitality and independence that gives Europe its strength and feeling of common cause in the network age. I think that the new applicant states are just beginning to realise, if they have not already done so, that this danger is coming.
The Prime Minister calls for Europe to become "a superpower", and he was at it again the other day in Cardiff. I think that we on this side ask when will be understand that strong nations are essential to human progress? When will he and the Government grasp that strong and independent nations are essential not only to the protection and care of ordinary people and the maintenance of law and order, but to the functioning and growth of prosperity and markets? Why does he believe that the world will be a safer place with two ambitious super-blocs projecting their "rightful" place on the world stage and inevitably rivalling each other? That is not my belief at all. Why does the Prime Minister believe that the rise of Europe as a military force will bring it closer to the people? How is that going to help us in our defences against globally organised terrorism?
It may be that, as the excellent report suggests, the aim of the convention is to restore public confidence in the European Union. In reality, however, the convention proposals—which are now rapidly becoming not proposals but hard decisions—amount in the deepest and truest sense to an anti-European endeavour. I am deeply convinced of that. I think that genuinely good Europeans should not be compromising with this, but challenging the flawed thinking underlying large parts of the proposals. At the very least, the British public should be guaranteed a referendum on the great new constitutional treaty which now looms—that is, if anyone has bothered to inform
912
them about what is truly involved, and how both their own and Europe's wider interests are at this very moment being submissively and incompetently traded away.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I must admit at the beginning, and I am sure that your Lordships will understand, that in speaking from these Benches in this debate on the future of Europe, I feel a poignant sense of loss. We are bereft by the death of Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. Just before Christmas, when he was plainly not well, Roy questioned me about the progress of the convention. He spoke with spirited insight and amused personal characterisations. Once again, however, I heard in his voice that determined magnanimity which for over four decades has been the best of Britain's contribution to the building of the European Union.
Perhaps in retrospect Roy Jenkins' constancy might seem to some inevitable, but, in truth, the choices which his European commitments summoned up were made with courage and small regard for personal political advancement. Of his formative work as President of the European Commission I shall later have more to say which is directly relevant to the decisions of the convention which lie ahead. In sum, however, Roy Jenkins' stance in Parliament and in the country made possible the broad-based acceptance of what the Prime Minister has acknowledged—that Britain's place should lie at the heart of Europe.
It has been for me a privilege to represent this House and this Parliament as an alternate member of the convention, and I thank noble Lords for the assistance and understanding with which they have provided me in that task. The convention works formally and informally through the interaction of its individual members, but not as a constituent assembly representative of the groups of which it is composed. There, I believe, lies its strength. It is this which has fostered the palpable sense of individual obligation to contribute to a successful outcome.
It is worth calling to mind the historical context in which the convention was set up. By a progression which was far from pre-ordained, from the Single European Act through the treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice, the member countries have constructed a Union with large proclaimed ambitions and increasingly diverse and complex constitutional means of achieving them. The Union has embraced provisions on citizenship, on the creation of an area of justice, freedom and security, and to develop a common security and defence policy. To the grandeur of these policy aims has been added, at Copenhagen, the welcome prospective physical enlargement of the Union to embrace most of the countries of the continent of Europe. The decision of the European Council at Laeken to have recourse to a convention, including representatives from candidate countries, was therefore a wise recognition of the urgent need for European constitutional reform.
Why a convention? I think that the limited achievements of the Nice Council and the positive precedent of the Convention on the Charter of Rights,

913
ably served by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, pointed to the possibilities inherent in widening the debate beyond the confines of the Council. It provided the opportunity for a deliberative process, openly conducted, whereunder all the decision-making arrangements of the Union could be considered together. Changes required by enlargement could be considered. Account could be taken of the dissatisfaction of many of Europe's citizens with the opacity and unresponsiveness of many of its processes. Judgments could be openly arrived at as to how best to advance the efficiency, effectiveness and democratic accountability of the workings of the Union. After nine months of working— and for myself and most members of the convention it has been a near full-time commitment—it is possible to take stock.
As has been indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, reports have been delivered from 10 working groups which have been debated and broadly approved by plenary sessions. Among the remarkable record of consensus achieved it can be noted that the convention is likely to draft a constitution for the Union, the skeleton of which is in place. A single legal personality will be ascribed to the Union, with provisions for securing for the Union a unified voice in external representation. The Charter of Rights will be embodied in the constitution, albeit subject to proper indications clarifying which matters will be justiciable and which declaratory of principles to be taken into account in interpretation. Provision is likely to be made to enable the Union to subscribe to the European Convention on Human Rights. Proposals have been made radically to simplify and reduce in number the instruments and procedures by which the Union legislates. My colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, has effectively deployed his experience in the process of reforming the Union's budgetary procedure. As the Group on Simplification, to which I belong, put it:
"citizens must be able to understand the system so that they can identify its problems, criticise it and ultimately control it".
A common general legal framework for provisions relating to justice, home affairs and internal security is likely to be proposed, with the proper distinction drawn between legislative and operational tasks, to untangle the maze of decision-making in this sphere which has baffled effective operation to date.
From the consideration of the Union's competences, and of what are likely to be known in future as its capacity to introduce "supporting measures", it is clear that enlarging the scope of the Union's powers is not backed by the convention— something which I think is particularly important to draw to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Howell. There is no desire to enlarge the competences of the European Union manifested in our deliberations. The whole thrust of the convention has been to enhance the efficiency, effectiveness and accountability of the Union's exercise of its existing powers. That has led to sensible recommendations for early warning of legislative initiatives to give national parliaments the opportunity to challenge proposals against the requirements of subsidiarity and proportionality. The work of national parliaments in scrutinising their own
914
governments and through them the work of the Council will be constitutionally fortified and the decision-making of the Council sitting in legislative capacity will almost certainly be made more fully open. So far, so good. But the convention has reached a turning point, to which the noble Baroness alluded. In the months left to it, it must flesh out the draft constitution.
The convention has been successfully led to this point by its president, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, ably assisted by the Secretary General, Sir John Kerr. Habits of agreement have been acquired. Now these habits must be applied to even more testing issues. 'What is to be the future of the four principal institutions of the Union? The convention must now consider what to recommend to the Council and to the peoples of Europe who in many cases will finally decide in national referenda. Already the Benelux countries have tabled a well considered paper. The Foreign Ministers of France and Germany, M. de Villepin and Joschka Fischer, both members of the convention, are expected shortly to follow suit. For Britain the Prime Minister has set out in his important Cardiff speech a most welcome commitment to ensuring a constructive outcome to the process.
The convention did not start with a blank sheet. In many respects the Union has been a success. Although there is room for consolidation, simplification and reform of the institutions, there is no case for jettisoning the acquis communautaire. Today Europe is enjoying internal peace and prosperity. To that achievement the Union may be able to add a safeguarded environment, of particular importance following enlargement.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? When he says that there is no case for jettisoning the acquis communautaire, can he think of any parliament, anywhere, at any time, that has taken the attitude that what is legislated for can never be repealed? Is all European legislation to be with us in perpetuity?
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, to jettison the acquis communautaire would be the equivalent of seeking by Act of this Parliament to dispose of the entire statute book. It would be a patent nonsense.
Today the new tasks which lie close to the heart of the reason why states exist include provision for the internal and external security of the Union. The Union also aspires to augment its influence on the world stage, to tackle poverty, disease, threats of war and the denial of human rights. In these tasks it would bring to bear its own commitments to democracy and the rule of law. In the delivery of these ends it has been said that the Union should not become a superstate but rather a superpower. Such attempted distinctions cannot disguise the fact that the Union is already a polity. It is more than an alliance, more than the concert of Europe periodically meeting to resolve its members' differences. The Union is a living, constitutional polity, with executive, legislative and judicial arms. It is a polity unlike a state only in the limitation of its powers.

915
For the convention then, its task is a practical one: to propose institutional reforms which subserve the effective advancement of the agreed purposes of the Union. The task is practical but it is sometimes unwisely presented as ideological and even adversarial. The convention is not, however, engaged in a zero-sum game in which the strengthening of one institution must be achieved at the expense of the loss of authority by another. Each of the Union's institutions brings to the decision-making process characteristics and capabilities which are essential to the success of the whole. Leaving aside the special role of the European Court of Justice in ensuring conformity with Union law, the trinity of Union institutions, the Council, the Commission and the Parliament, exemplify the sixth century theological concept of the Holy Trinity characterised by the Greek term perichoresis. This allowed the individuality of the three persons to be maintained while insisting that each person shares in the life of the other two. To stray into theology, however, is to risk my reputation for practicality.
To put the issue bluntly, the Council must remain, particularly in the sphere of external affairs, the body which brings credibility to the Union's actions by the commitment of the member states individually and collectively, including their commitment of the necessary resources. Its strategic role in agreeing the purposes and direction of the Union is paramount.
The Commission is the Union's principal executive with the twin role of acting as the agent to implement the Union's policies and to propose policies which may fulfil the Union's aims. It is self-deluding to see these roles, particularly the latter, as subservient, technocratic functions. They are eminently political. The Commission's president, in particular, while versed in the art of the possible, must reach out with foresight and imagination to lead the Union towards its goals. In that context, we may recall how Roy Jenkins, speaking as Commission president in Florence in October 1977, spelled out a new objective for the Union—the creation in Europe of a zone of currency stability to tackle inflation and unemployment. We may also recall how he recognised the necessity of bringing the member states onside to achieve that goal, and how he himself secured the consent of Chancellor Helmut Schmidt and President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing. If in the world of the new 25-nation Europe such a practical role is to be exercised effectively, it must also be exercised democratically.
The Prime Minister is surely right in acknowledging the need for continued, sustained leadership responsibility within the Union. Without it, the Union will be reduced to ad hoc cobbling together of responses to events. The required leadership cannot stem from the merry-go-round of the Council presidency. It requires a statesman of calibre and commitment to preside over the Union's executive, who is acceptable to and will work with the Council to fulfil its strategic aims. That statesman should also enjoy the authority that flows from democratic election.
916
That thought must lead to the consideration of the function of the European Parliament. It, too, has an indispensable role in directly voicing the views of the citizens in legislation and in holding the Union's executive to account. When the public elects a Parliament, it expects much more than the European Parliament is able to offer. It expects that the outcome of the election will have some effect on the policy priorities of that polity of which Parliament is part. It also expects that the election will have direct consequences in confirming or changing the leadership of that polity. The citizens of Europe have been denied those outcomes, and it is not to be marvelled at that interest in European elections is declining when the outcomes are so limited.
These are among the issues that the convention must address, and soon. If the Union is to cohere, to tackle effectively the tasks that its citizens want it to discharge, the convention must not—and, I believe, will not—funk the issue of democracy. That, as I see it, is the heart of the matter before us.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, as several noble Lords have said, it is high time to consider progress in the Convention on the Future of Europe. The convention is entering the last six months of its activity. By the middle of the year, it will pass over to an intergovernmental conference of member states the building blocks that will make up the next stage of the European Union's construction. The shaping of that latter negotiation—of the greatest importance to Britain as a leading member of the Union—will take place in the first half year of 2003.
It is also high time for the holding of this debate, given the tell-tale signals, already visible, of a familiar but dispiriting cycle, evident at many previous critical stages in the Union's development, in terms of Britain's approach. During the first phase, we largely ignore the debate raging in Brussels, treating it as one of those funny, esoteric games that continental politicians love to play but which need not greatly trouble the minds of practical, pragmatic and down-to-earth Britons, who have managed so well down the centuries without having to worry about such things as constitutions. The second phase is dominated by "shock-horror" stories in the assiduously Eurosceptic press, as each idea washed up on the wilder shores of European federalism is lovingly dissected and treated as if it were about to become holy writ throughout Europe. The third phase is one of trench warfare, in which British negotiators devote the largest part of their time and energy to blocking ideas put forward by others, the conclusion of which is a new treaty whose British battle honours largely consist of what does not appear in it, thanks to our doughty resistance. It may be said that I exaggerate—but not much, I fear.
If we are to avoid a repetition of that caricature, we must, as the Government and their representative in the convention have from the outset tried to do, propose our own ideas and suggestions for the future shaping of the Union. Both Houses of Parliament, which in the end will be the arbiters through the

917
process of ratification of what may become binding treaty obligations in this country, must be an integral part of the process. Otherwise, we shall simply be a rubber stamp.
The convention's scope is extremely wide, as the debate has shown. I shall concentrate on the management and direction of the Union's external affairs. I do so not arbitrarily but because it is likely to be the greatest challenge to the Union's viability and credibility in the period ahead. Up to now, that policy area has lagged behind most others, such as the single market and the single currency. Some argue that a common foreign and security policy is neither attainable or desirable, but they risk playing the role of King Canute's courtiers. In fact, such a policy is taking shape before our eyes.
In the Balkans, European policy is already a key factor. In a short time, now that the final difficulties over the modalities of co-operation between the Union and NATO have been ironed out, the Union is likely to be involved in military and police activities in Macedonia and Bosnia. In the Middle East, the European Union is one of the quartet of external players struggling to move away from the violence and back to a viable peace process. At Copenhagen, momentous decisions were taken on the Union's enlargement, including Turkey's candidature, which will have a fundamental and far-reaching impact on a whole range of Europe's external relationships. So the choice that we face is not whether to have a European foreign and security policy but what its contents should be and how it should be run.
On that last point, I should say straightaway that I do not believe that the Commission's proposal to apply what is known as the community method to those external areas of policy is either practical politics or the best way in which to proceed. One will not find the right way forward by applying the well-tried methods for handling single-market legislation or trade policy—the Commission's right of initiative, the application of majority voting pretty well across the board, responsibility to a European Parliament that lacks a governmental majority or a direct voice for the national governments that have to make the ultimate life or death choices in this field. Here, as elsewhere, it is important to avoid an outright juxtaposition of a federalist with a purely intergovernmental approach. The European Union has from the outset been a hybrid animal, somewhere between the two extremes, and I believe that it will remain so for the foreseeable future.
I make six suggestions for the way ahead on external policy. First, whatever the advantages of the presidency system for the handling of strictly Community business—and the recent Danish presidency was an example of how well that can be done—the presidency system in a Union of 25 or more member states cannot possibly provide the required focus, professionalism or leadership for a common foreign and security policy. The sooner that the presidency's role in CFSP can begin to be phased out,
918
the better. Ideally, a new balance in the management of CFSP needs to be up and running before the new member states join in May 2004.
Secondly, there are simply too many cooks in Europe's foreign policy kitchen. That makes for much confusion and duplication and enables our external partners to divide us and rule. The primacy of Javier Solana as the High Representative needs to be more firmly established, marked by his chairing the External Affairs Council. He needs a stronger staff back-up with a considerable degree of cross-posting between member states, diplomatic services and these integrated functions. He needs more financial resources. The interface with the Commission requires a solution that avoids subordinating Solana or his successor to its institutional characteristics but encourages much closer co-operation., joint departments where necessary and a unity of control and policy making in times of crisis.
Thirdly, while qualified majority voting in this field bristles with difficulties, there must be a way of avoiding the Union's foreign policy becoming the lowest common denominator of 25 or more member states. A system closer to that of the UN Security Council, under which majority voting could be tempered by a right of veto for the larger member states—perhaps requiring two such states to act together, thus avoiding the arbitrariness of the UN system—might provide a fair balance.
Fourthly, better and more systematic use needs to be made of Europe's biggest diplomatic asset: the network of its member states' diplomatic Missions across the world. One way of proceeding would be to set up a panel composed of politicians and diplomatic practitioners to report on the best medium and long-term approach to operating a system that will promote the interests of the Union as a whole and at the same time enable the member states to continue to fulfil their own foreign policy responsibilities.
Fifthly, the parliamentary dimension cannot and must not be neglected. Why not establish a foreign affairs committee of the Union which would bring together representatives of the national parliaments and those of the European Parliament and act as a sounding board and a source of democratic legitimacy for the Union's foreign and security policy?
Sixthly, thought needs to be given to the management of the single most important external relationship that Europe has—that with the United States. The hard fact is that if Europe and the United States get at cross purposes, they tend to frustrate the achievement of their frequently shared overall objectives. We saw that in Bosnia. However, their interests and their approach to foreign policy crises are not always and will not always be identical. So a way surely needs to be found to create an organic link between the two sides of the Atlantic that enables information—often sensitive information—to be exchanged and policy options to be discussed without all of that having to be carried out under the glare of publicity and being subjected to the pressures of public controversy.

919
It would be interesting to hear the Minister's reaction to at least some of those ideas and how the Government themselves intend to contribute to the convention's future work on Europe's common foreign and security policy.
I shall conclude with a wider look at the place of the convention and the coming intergovernmental conference in the overall development of the European Union. In recent years, there have been far too many of these conclaves and too much institutional tinkering. The successes of the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty, which laid the foundations for the single market, the single currency and a common foreign and security policy, gave way to the muddle and confusion of Amsterdam and Nice. Digging the plant up and examining its roots every five years or so is not a prescription for steady, healthy growth. The present convention, with the near certain outcome of a constitutional document that will distinguish the basic elements of the Union from the necessarily continuing evolution of its main policies, offers a way out of this seemingly unending series of negotiations. The challenge that governments face this year is to seize that opportunity, to find a series of compromises with which federalisers and intergovernmentalists can live and to address, with undistracted vigour, the main policy choices that will determine how well the European Union succeeds in achieving its settled objectives. That is surely the only way of making the European Union seem truly relevant to the daily lives of the mass of its citizens.
5.24 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, on behalf of my colleagues on these Benches, I warmly welcome the debate. I am enormously grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and the Select Committee for all their work. However, we still need to address two other issues: first, the values that are implicit in the work of the convention and in the European institutions; and, secondly, that deathly silence about things European within British society, which the Minister described as the growing sense of disengagement and disillusion across Europe.
One of the great privileges of being a Bishop in this House is in saying daily prayers. I recognise that for some the saying of those prayers here will seem a quaint and irrelevant anachronism. Some will be glad that prayers happen, though they themselves will not necessarily take part. For others, the prayers are fundamental, not only because of what they say about God, but because of what they imply about the role of us all in this Chamber. Whatever views any of us takes about those prayers, they are a reminder at the very least of the possibility of God. They are predicated on a belief that we are not solely answerable to one another and to society, but that we may also be answerable to Almighty God.
Whether you actually believe that or not is not exactly the point. Even if personally you have drawn the conclusion that there is no God, allowing for the
920
possibility of God ensures that debate in this House has a dimension that it logically could not have without it.
It does not follow from what I have said that I am in favour of theocracy as a form of government. I believe that wherever it rears its head theocracy should be resisted, tooth and nail. What I argue for is that the concept—it is a very mild one at one level—of the possibility of God should not be kicked into the margins in our debate about European institutions and the European future. However, my experience of the European institutions as they are emerging is that God is simply discounted and denied—"Laicity rules okay" and that secularist ideologies of governance are becoming stridently and assertively exclusive.
With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan—I am sure that he is not at all surprised that I have risen to the theological fly that he cast across the water—the theological concept of perichoresis is not primarily about individualism, but the communal relationships of the person within the godhead. "Europe" can and does cope with private expressions of religious belief, but it is not coping, cannot cope and wilfully will not cope with institutional or communal forms of religious belief, of whatever faith that belief may be.
That is a serious moral weakness in the underlying philosophy of the institutions. It is proving to be a serious weakness in what the Minister referred to as the European political architecture, because it wilfully denies the possibility of God. Therefore, it wilfully denies serious and long-held beliefs about human dignity and worth and purpose that have helped to shape Europe for the best part of 2,000 years. It limits the vision of what it means to be a human being, and of what it means to be a "human being in community". To set up a Europe based on that kind of narrowness of philosophy is to design potential failure into the system.
Will the Minister assure this House that, for the sake of richness and diversity in Europe, the role of the Churches and other religious communities in relation to the European institutions and their political architecture will be given serious attention? Might she also be willing to be generous enough to suggest that the good practices which have grown up in this nation over the centuries in this regard might be worthy of further study, not only by Her Majesty's Government but by governments across Europe? To want to be at the heart of Europe and yet, at the same time, to ignore the soul of Europe would be to make a profound mistake.
My second point relates to the serious lack of high-quality public debate about things European in this nation. It hardly happens at all and, if it does, it is simply based around sound-bites about the five economic tests and when a referendum might be held.
I was very fortunate to be present in Parliament when the BBC World Service organised a seminar on the threat of war in Afghanistan. Some of your Lordships may also have been present. The seminar was brilliant. It was the BBC at its very, very best. Is it

921
not possible for a public-service broadcaster to see that it has a duty not only to entertain but also to inform and educate? Endless make-overs of homes and gardens and endless narcissistic reality television mean that the brilliance that exists in the BBC is being completely wasted.
In our country a serious contribution to the debate about Europe is long overdue. The talent is there. Can someone please allow it to be released so that the citizens of our country can help to shape the European future and not simply be pawns in a future being shaped by others?
I conclude by joining everyone else in the House in urging that this subject be brought back to this place with the frequency which its profound importance to the life of our nation and to Europe so richly deserves.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, together with the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, it has been my privilege to represent your Lordships' House as one of the alternate members of the convention. As one of your Lordships' representatives, I am perhaps entitled to say that I am somewhat disappointed with the dynamic flow of information coming from my constituency and giving me the benefit of noble Lords' views. But I appreciate the one letter that I have received and the number of conversations that I have had with Members, particularly in the Bishops' Bar.
It is important that we understand a little more deeply than we do at present some of the processes of the convention. It does not meet only in a plenary format. Every time there is a two-day plenary session, the political groups across the institutions meet on the morning of the first day. After they have met. the national parliamentarians of various countries and political groups meet so that they can gain a sense of common view of what is important to national parliamentarians.
At the same time as the national parliamentarians meet, governments also meet to seek to defend their interests. Then, in order to deny us lunch on the first day of the convention, the Brits meet at 2.15 p.m., be they from national parliaments, national government or the European Parliament, so that we have a sense of common understanding of the views that are important to those who come from the United Kingdom.
Against that background, we have seen a change in the convention itself. Over recent weeks, a number of governments have decided to have a very high level of representation, as the British Government did right from the start. For example, originally the German Government were represented by a civil servant; they are now represented by their Foreign Minister. Mr de Villepin has just become a member of the convention. Ireland was represented by a former Commissioner but is now represented by its Foreign Secretary.
We have seen that change come about as more and more governments are represented at a more serious level, such as has been the case for this country with my right honourable friend Peter Hain and my noble
922
friend Lady Scotland representing government. Governments are taking the matter seriously because ultimately the convention will not decide the final outcome. Members of the convention will decide their deliberations but heads of government meeting in an IGC will decide the final outcome of the convention. If the convention produces ideas which are anathema to heads of government, then those ideas will be dispatched to the dustbin. Therefore, the convention must take into account the views of governments. who will clearly have final responsibility at the IGC.
We heard the description of the work of the working groups and I do not propose to go through that again. Suffice it to say that, even though there has been Some sort of debate, those working groups in their totality will not be binding on the convention because there can be no sense in which they were structured to be representative of the convention. Therefore, I believe that at this stage, when we are debating the convention, almost every single issue is still to play for.
During that period, the dynamics within the convention have changed. I could see how quickly things have changed when I looked at the report introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. Paragraph 57 states:
"Lord Tomlinson told us that the MEPs were the most coherent group".
That was certainly the case at the beginning of the convention. The MEPs were in their home territory with their offices and staff and with easy access to communications. The visiting national parliamentarians were the political gypsies of the convention—they had nowhere even to hang a coat.
The dynamics of the convention have changed dramatically. I believe that today it is true to say that, as the national parliamentarians have come to understand each other's points of view and have come to know each other better, their representation has strengthened significantly and is certainly far greater than pessimists such as myself saw it earlier as having the potential to be.
Many ideas have been put forward. They have all been published on the convention website and are in the public arena. Many of them are mutually contradictory. Some are gathering support and some are clearly failing to do so. I do not want to deal with the big issues of the convention; my role today is to listen to your Lordships' points of view. But one issue that has been circulating in the framework of the convention is the idea of a congress.
When that idea was put forward, it was widely rubbished in the early stages and it seemed that it would disappear. However, it has been put forward by a number of people, including the French Government. The idea lives on and I hope that noble Lords will give some attention to it. I hope that they will not necessarily reject it but will regard it as depending on what it finally turns out to be. If the idea of a congress is something similar to the Rome assizes tried a decade ago, then I agree that it should be killed off quickly. However, if it is to be on a much smaller scale, gives the opportunity to involve national

923
parliamentarians on a real basis, and, for example, has the capacity to replace COSAC, which gives national parliamentarians, if this is the outcome of the convention, the opportunity perhaps to endorse the Commission's work programme and to have a say on the appointment or election of a Commission president—certainly if there are the changes envisaged by Her Majesty's Government it would have a say over the appointment or election of a council president—I believe it is an idea which still has some utility. There are real possibilities.
However, all those issues beg the question of the institutional changes, which are now the big issues to be faced in the convention. I am slightly concerned that too many people are approaching institutional changes from the point of view of an almost triangular battle for competencies between the institutions. Certainly, the last paper produced by the European Commission did no good whatever for the reputation of that institution. I regret that because I believe that the Commission has an important role in this future institutional structure.
The whole idea of institutional balance, referred to by my noble friend Lady Scotland, is extremely important. The idea of giving the European Parliament power to elect a European Commission President is one which should be rejected because it changes significantly institutional balance. On the other hand, the idea of a second Chamber made up of national parliamentarians was rejected by this House and has been widely rejected in the convention because it would change the balance against the European Parliament in a different direction.
The role proposed by the convention in relation to subsidiarity has wide support. The role proposed for a national parliament by the working group of Gisela Stuart has had wide support and I believe deserves the support of Members of this House. My noble friend Lady Scotland stated that those institutional reforms need balance, and she is right. What must be avoided is the attempt to turn the institutional questions into an inter-institutional triangular battle.
Reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, to five words from the speech of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister given in Cardiff; namely,
"a proper Constitution for Europe".
That was all he chose to quote. In order to understand the balance of what was being said it is important that we see those five words in the context of the sentence:
"First, we do need a proper Constitution for Europe, one which makes it clear that the driving ideology is indeed a union of nations not a superstate subsuming national sovereignty and national identity. This should be spelt out in simple language. A new Constitution for Europe can bring a new stability to the shape of Europe—not a finality which would prevent any future evolution. but a settlement to last a generation or more".
That is certainly, in a very short paragraph, the view that I have of the role of the convention and a role in which I look forward to participating over the next three to four months.
5.44 p.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, who succeeded throughout his speech and at the end in presenting his view with great clarity. Before going on to analyse it, I should like to make a personal statement. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell told me that the Procedure Committee discussed the habit of some Members of this House who apologise for being absent towards the end of a debate and disappear rather than remain to hear the closing speeches. In the light of my noble friend's warning, I checked and found that in two of the four debates we have had on this subject in the past three years I have done just that. I promise to be a good boy in future. I do that because I hope others will do the same.
Beyond that, I take much comfort from the fact that this debate is taking place, and from the way in which it is developing. We are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, for her presentation and insight, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and the two rapporteurs, if that is the right description: the noble Lords, Lord Maclennan and Lord Tomlinson, for their insight.
The debate is a signal of much greater vitality and parliamentary engagement in the institutional changes of the European Union. The fact that the convention is taking place is a similar development. We should be grateful to former President Giscard D'Estaing for the way in which he is running it. I cannot resist a word of thanks to the Foreign Office official who, to the surprise of some people, I appointed as my principal private secretary when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He benefits from being trained not only in the Foreign Office but also by my noble friend Lord Lawson and myself in the Treasury. I refer to Sir John Kerr, who is helping Giscard D'Estaing. I am very glad that he is in that position.
A point of great seriousness is the openness and flow of views passing between those considering the institutional changes and these parliaments. I take my mind back to the IGC which led to the Single European Act. It was preceded by a rather solemn sounding body called the Dooge Committee, named after Senator Dooge of the Republic of Ireland, on which my learned friend, as he was in another place, Malcolm Rifkind, was our representative. It proceeded almost unobserved and it was left to the governments to come together in the IGC, building upon the work of faceless civil servants who worked with diligence, I hasten to add. Today there is a much greater flow of ideas taking place. The Dooge Committee has been completely surpassed by the present engagement of parliamentarians throughout the European Union and in this place.
As leader of the other place I recollect establishing a new procedure for the handling of EU legislation—to enable us more carefully to scrutinise it, ran the argument. Instead of sitting after 10 o'clock at night, special committees were convened at 10.30 in the morning to carry out this ruthless procedure. The main reason for making that change was so that people did not have to stay late at night. The quality and degree of

925
intensity of scrutiny did not significantly improve or increase as a result of the change. In other words, it was being driven by our own parliamentary convenience rather than our wish to engage in the work of the European Union. That is the big difference now. It has been well described by the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson.
As I anticipated, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, spoke of the way in which we should handle foreign relations within the European Union, and our common foreign security policy. Broadly speaking, I endorse his approach. It has to be founded upon intergovernmental activity. At different times over the years we have both commended the idea of something approaching a veto for the large powers in CFSP determination. As the noble Lord knows from his other life in New York, that proposition imposes an obligation upon the permanent members to secure agreement and achieve a unity in trying to drive forward a common foreign policy. But it respects the anxieties which no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Owen, will express and which are at the heart of reality here.
It is also true that what we achieve in the European Union depends in the end much more upon our actions than upon the texts that we spend so much time scrutinising. However, the texts are not unimportant. We are considering what will be a constitution. That arouses cries of, "Shock horror: constitution of the European Union". The European Union has always had a constitution. The Treaty of Rome and the various treaties that have been written on top of it have been the constitutional framework within which we work. It has become a mammoth of Pelion upon Ossa upon Pelion upon Ossa, of mounting unintelligibility. That is why I have much sympathy with my noble friend Lord Lamont when he was rather dismissive about the affection of the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, for the acquis communautaire.
I remember in the course of the national debate before the Thatcher government were elected, committing ourselves to the proposition that we should make fewer laws and make the laws fewer. We failed probably in both respects. Successive governments have continued to do so. But we should certainly adopt that approach towards the acquis rather than regarding it as a sacred, layer upon layer, geological text, to be built upon indefinitely.
It is therefore a legitimate purpose to have a constitution which looks more like a constitution. That would avoid the misleading perpetuity of "ever closer union" as an objective. That phrase has always conjured up for me a horrible picture of an eternally restless polygamous matrimonial bed in which people were struggling to achieve "ever closer union" on many fronts at the same time. That is not a picture that I relish. If we can have a constitution that is simpler than that, and one that has a degree of finality attached to it, I think that would be a great example.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, was right to emphasise the degree to which, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, Britain is making progress in this argument by being engaged actively in that process. The only qualification that I would make to that claim is that it is not without precedent. The
926
most active period of engagement was under the leadership of my noble friend Lady Thatcher when we were promoting the achievement of the single market. We could not have been more effectively engaged than we were at that time and actively involved. That is, I think, the key to the success of the European Union when it is at its best. Where people effectively become engaged with each other and the purpose. M Delors, having learned some important lessons during his time as France's Finance Minister, became an active and effective market-driven president of the Commission. He worked in partnership with my noble friend, the market-driven Lady Thatcher, and others, including incidentally my noble friend Lord Cockfield who made a huge contribution to that achievement, and who is not, alas, in his place today.
The question is: what propositions should we be supporting against that background of activity? I refer to the document produced last August under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Brittan, supported by six or seven Members of this House who are former Ministers and six or seven former Conservative Ministers in the other House, setting out an agenda not unlike that which has been pursued by the Government.
The first point was stressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. She said that we need to have clarity about where power lies. That is very important. It was also supported by my noble friend Lord Howell. We need something like a states rights clause, setting out clearly what is already implicit—that the European Union has competence only where it has been specifically given such competence by the treaty. If that does not exist, then it does not have power.
The second point in line with that is the machinery for the surveillance of subsidiarity. The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, among other noble Lords has referred to that. That subsidiarity should be policed— this is also a great innovation—by representatives of the national parliaments coming together. My noble friend Lord Howell raised a doubt about the effectiveness of that. I have some sympathy with his anxiety. In the proposal we put forward, we say that when the whistle has been blown by the national parliamentarians the matter should go within a short period of time to the European Court of Justice for it to decide. In order for that to be an effective change. it needs that kind of back-up.
The other point on which there is general agreement is the need for a radical reform of the presidency of the council. I apologise for using the word "presidency". It is confusing. I mean rather the chairmanship of the council, which suffers currently from a lack of continuity, short-termism and the absence of a public face. We need to have a chairman of the Council of Ministers elected and appointed for a period of years and supported by a troika of other member state representatives. The interesting point is that that heretical proposition, recognising the importance of the Council of Ministers, has secured the support of former President Delors, which is important.

927
As to the Commission, a year or two ago I was attracted by the idea that its president should be elected by the European Parliament. I make a confession even more curious—I thought at one time that it was rather a good idea if one could have a Europe-wide political party, fighting Europe-wide European elections. One party could be led by myself, for example, and another by the noble Lord, Lord Owen. The European Parliament would be treated as an electoral college. When his party or my party won, it would be its job to elect the president of the Commission. It is an attractive thought although we are both a little past it now, if I may say so.
I have resiled from that proposition now. It seems to me to put the Commission in a false position. The Commission is not the source of authority. The bridge of this vessel is the Council of Ministers, the European council. The Commission has to be a well-run part of the engine room. It needs to have leadership. It needs to have a very good chief engineer. That is the right relationship, which I hope will emerge from the discussion that is taking place.
The last point I want to make is a also a simple one. We need to have some method of securing a more effective and rigorous enforcement of European law. People are always apprehensive if one is talking vigorously about the importance of Community law. I take some pride in the fact that when I was editing Crossbow in 1962, we published almost the first authoritative text entitled The Rome Treaty and the Law, written by Denis Thompson. That 1962 text set out that under the jurisdiction of the European Community the Community would have powers to make laws which were forthwith directly binding upon and enforceable against citizens of member states.
There is no mystery. Without that formal Community law, most of our obligations could not be enforced. We would not have been able even to try to get the French to accept British beef, for example. We have had to wait a long time to see that happen.
So the proposal I make is that where an obligation is not being enforced, it would be possible for the aggrieved party, the aggrieved member state, to go back within a short space of time to the European Court of Justice to get a ruling within three months; and the sanctions which would be available to the court would be not only the imposition of financial sanctions but the withdrawal of the right to participate in Community programmes, the withdrawal if necessary of voting rights and participation in decision taking—a robust, effective means of enforcing Community law to the benefit of us all.
I have spoken for too long. But I welcome the debate. I welcome the way that our colleagues are taking part in this exciting but not unimportant process of changing the world in which we live. I close, perhaps surprisingly, by quoting a sentence from the speech made by my right honourable friend Michael Ancram, the shadow Foreign Secretary, in the debate in the other place on
928
11th December. This is the robust and practical view. He said that,
"the EU can be made to work better. In the 21st century, it still has a vital role to play".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/12/02; col. 313.]
So long as my party remains committed to that proposition, which is the proposition that the late Lord Jenkins made possible for us as we said earlier today, I shall be content about the future of the European Union.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, the House should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and his committee for the opportunity for this debate. It is to be hoped—I am sure expected—that the House will have other occasions to debate the development of this convention. Quite apart from anything else, if we had not had this debate, we would not have been attracted by the prospect, perhaps now passed, of the noble Lords, Lord Howe and Lord Owen, leading great battalions of cross-European confederations in political battle.
Early in the Minister's detailed and excellent speech she admitted that the homes and pubs of the United Kingdom are not abuzz with constitutional debate; that the niceties of the balance between the institutions does not to this moment grip the imagination of the population. That is true. Perhaps one should also say to the right reverend Prelate that despite that important exchange between himself and the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, on the theological import of what is happening, theological debate does not appear to have gripped them either.
However, I should like to comment on a particular aspect which the right reverend Prelate brought to our attention. If we are seriously talking about a constitution for Europe, a constitution without an awareness of the values on which the Union is based would indeed be seriously flawed. It is curious that we find it so hard to think about the values of the European Union. The right reverend Prelate drew the House's attention to the responsibility of public broadcasters to ensure that not just the immediate but the underlying arguments—and the values behind them—about the future of the European Union are discussed.
One reason why it is so difficult to get a wider debate in the United Kingdom—and it is—is because there is an underlying feeling in our country that the past is almost without argument, better than the present and infinitely better than the future can ever be. Over Christmas and the New Year I did a little sum, and I noticed that during that period the main terrestrial television networks aired more than 30 feature films dealing with the Second World War. It is of course right that we remember the Second World War, draw lessons from it and take pride in it, but it is most unfortunate if people are obsessive to the point of not allowing us to look forward to the future and foresee a Europe in which we play a powerful, formative and principled role.

929
Several noble Lords said that it is interesting that a convention that in its earliest weeks and months was dismissed as peripheral and doomed to failure is now taken more seriously and appears more substantial. However, I suspect that the convention retains a Cinderella quality. There is a feeling that while Europe discusses the intricacies of its constitutional balance, the real world—namely, the situation in Iraq or the Middle East—may break through and make it all rather irrelevant. One reason why the convention is becoming substantial and its considerations important is that basic drivers—new realities—are pressing in on us that make it imperative to have greater clarity about Europe's constitutional arrangements.
We have the fact of enlargement. The way in which enlargement was discussed—in particular, the opening of dialogue with Turkey in a new way, which will certainly involve the values of the European Union in future—has in itself unlocked a large barrier to the development of common defence and security policies within the European Union. It has had a knock-on effect. Enlargement is a fact and it is clear to everyone that the constitutional arrangements that only just work for 15 members cannot possibly work for 25 or more.
The second driver is a growing sense that we must have more of a voice in foreign and security issues. There must be more coherence and greater coordination. While in part we sit back as spectators to that achievement—I notice that the Prime Minister referred in his Cardiff speech to the fact that the High Representative and Mr Patten have succeeded in projecting greater coherence and impact—there is a strong sense, widely shared in the House, that there must be still greater coherence and co-ordination.
Thirdly—although there are other factors, and this is not the real subject of our debate—there is the fact that the euro has arrived, has lasted and did not tumble into failure, as many predicted in its first few weeks. Indeed, its value against the dollar is rising. It is clearly here to stay and the problem for us will not go away. That is another driver.
However, we must recognise that those drivers are not sufficient really to engage popular imagination or debate. At the heart of what the convention must now face is not the fleshing out of detail but coming to some landing on where power sits within the European Union. It is significant that within two weeks France and Germany will lay on the table their proposals for where that landing may be. It will be a great challenge for them to arrive at any common landing. The truth is that those two countries represent highly distinct positions on the future of the European Union.
Not to caricature the position, but perhaps getting to its essentials, the instinct of the Federal Republic of Germany—in which it would have the support of many smaller countries of the European Union and, I suspect, the enlarged Union—is still that the Union should not be dominated by institutions that, in their turn, are dominated by the larger states, and that in the balance of institutional power, the European Commission should be strengthened and its political
930
legitimacy enhanced. France, on the other hand, has an instinct, which is surely nearer to ours, that this is a Europe of nations—a phrase that the French like to use—in which the key institution is the Council of Ministers, and that the top priority is to gain greater coherence in the Council of Ministers. including altering the arrangements for its presidency.
Earlier, we remembered the role of the late Lord Jenkins. It was my good fortune to work for him in Brussels for four years. I recall that the most interesting aspect of that time was twice having with others sat in on what were in effect telephone conferences—although they were not called that then—between Roy Jenkins sitting in the Berlaymont in Brussels, Giscard d'Estaing in Paris and Helmut Schmidt, the then German Chancellor, in Bonn.
Lord Jenkins used to chair those telephone conferences. Although we did not have video links in those days, so that the inimical rotund gestures of Roy Jenkins could not be seen, he nevertheless used all his persuasive powers— incidentally, all the conversations took place in English— to bring those very different men, one perpetually gloomy, the other erratically buoyant, to some form of agreement. Why did he do that? Because he understood, as we must, that we cannot progress in Europe unless there is a fundamental agreement between Germany and France.
Thinking back, it is interesting that that agreement was made possible, or certainly enormously enabled, by a very British skill in pushing for practical advance pragmatic advance, if you like— concentrating on concrete matters, such as Roy Jenkins' ideas for again kick-starting the lapsed process of European economic and monetary union, informed, although the issue at stake was not democracy, by a democratic instinct about the nature of debate and disagreement. and how to put together agreement in its place.
I urge the Minister and the Government. in considering this country's role in the final stages of the European convention, to see it as being quite the equal of that of France and Germany, although their membership much predates ours, but a creative one, informed by an instinct for democracy and practicality. We must at least begin to solve the disconnection between the powers and capabilities of the European Union, the involvement of people in the process and their understanding of what is being discussed and decided.
There is one factor that we can identify and which we must address, whatever the ultimate solution. We cannot go on saying to electors in Europe, who have all sorts of votes—local votes, regional votes, city votes and national votes—that their European Union vote, with which they vote for the European Parliament, can have no measurable impact on the agenda of Europe or the governance of Europe. We must address that disconnection, and we should have a British instinct for addressing it.
None of us has a neat solution. Lots of ideas have been propounded, and one that I heard for the first time this evening was that put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, who spoke about transnational parties. Unless people Eire persuaded that voting for the European Parliament

931
makes a difference, we can write as many constitutions as we like and summarise them on little plastic cards that people can carry around, saying, "This is Europe", but people will not feel it, will not understand it and will see it as being remote.
I hope that, in the Minister's response tonight and, more importantly, in what happens over the next few months, there will be a sense of optimism on the part of Her Majesty's Government that the British view can and will make a real and marked difference.
6.11 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I follow the general sweep of the approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Richmond. The Government have been more active in presenting Europe, as the noble Lord suggested, but there is the major question of the nervous breakdown in some parts of the national consciousness when it comes to the idea of a constitution. In handling that matter, the convention is one of the most useful EU innovations in recent years. When debating the question a few months ago of whether there should be a second Chamber in the EU, one or two of us said, "Well, we have one". The relationship between the different parts of the European jigsaw in the convention will prove its worth.
It seems inevitable that the Official Opposition will portray the outcome of the convention as being akin to the conclusions of the convention in Philadelphia in 1787. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that that was, in a sense, the thrust of his point about the convention. It is certainly in many people's minds; we cannot say that it is not there. M Giscard d'Estaing himself alluded to it. It will be unfortunate if what comes out of the convention is portrayed as being the same as what came out of the convention of Philadelphia in 1787, following the declaration of independence in 1776—that was the time that it took before they got there—just because it looks a bit like it. We must educate the British people to understand that that is not the case. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, said, Europe is sui generis and is not like anything that has ever existed. It is counter-productive simply to look for convenient slogans, such as "the United States of Europe", with all the connotations of Philadelphia.
That ties in with the fact that the people who wanted a settlement in Europe included many on the Benches opposite who had said that there was too much drift and incrementalism and that we should define the animal. I do not know what happened to that school of thought, but the question must, logically, be addressed in that spirit.
I welcome many of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, about the presidency of the Council of Ministers, although the noble Lord does not need my support. In half a dozen minutes, he made half a dozen valuable points, ranging from the role of Mr Solana to his most interesting comment that
932
Europe needed a security council akin to the Security Council of the United Nations, with x permanent members—I think that that was the implication—and some rotating members. That is one solution to the question of how we allow the big and small countries to have some ownership of Europe and how we can get away from the caravanserai of presidencies. One minute, we are in Corfu and, next minute, we are in Parvoo. In the future, it will be Tallinn one minute and Szeged the next. Although the plus side of that system is the ownership by those countries, it is not a sensible way to run a bigger Europe.
I must add a few words in defence of the Commission, although it is an unfashionable thing to do. I have not heard anybody say much in favour of the Commission, but it has been the greatest success story in politics since the war. The distinguished people on the Commission—Roy Jenkins has been mentioned, but Neil Kinnock and Chris Patten are also, in their way, distinguished politicians—provide a balance of political weight. The Commission's power of initiative has driven things forward time and again. Again, it is different from any other political structure—in history or at present.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, was right to say that there needed to be a continued balance between the Commission and the Council of Ministers. If we simply had a secretariat for the Council of Ministers, the necessary homework on the proposed legislation would not have been done. I can give some examples from the social field, which is coming again into focus. From the start, the founders of Europe—Monnet and Schuman through to Jacques Delors—thought that the social dimension was important not only because there was a social market economy but because that was how the people could identify with the project. There is nothing wrong with that; we have been discussing it for most of the past couple of hours. Initiatives were agreed then about which no one sees anything wrong now, even though, at the time, in this country, we were collectively at the Eurosceptic end of the market. What about equal pay? That originated in Brussels 30 years ago. What about the transfer of employment protection? That originated in Brussels 20 years ago. We can bring the story up to date with the rights of part-time workers and so on.
We must present some of the changes in national labour markets as things that European countries are doing together. In Europe, there is a close connection between the economic and the social dimension. The Amsterdam arrangements were a big step forward and were quite different from the characterisation of the Commissioners as being interested only in producing directives.
There were four pillars concerned with the labour market—adaptability, employability, equal opportunity and vocational training. That has been the main emphasis of the Commission in the social field since that time. It is nonsense to say that the Commission is showing a dinosaur approach to structural change in a market economy. Is it not a paradox that people now say the Germans are the dinosaurs and that we should find means

933
to help them change? The European Commission becomes more involved in setting new benchmarks for structural change and that is then turned on its head and portrayed as the famous super state.
I turn now to the role of this House. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, mention not only the report today, but the report on the review of scrutiny of European legislation. On page 38 there is a question which we must think carefully about. I am not sure that the ambition to have everything considered in four weeks, when it is the subject of co-decision, is workable. We in this House have too much genuflection to the theory of scrutiny when our actual appetite for considering more than a selective number of issues is simply not there. The moral is that we must forego the luxury of standing on our dignity, which is not in short supply, and having acrimonious correspondence with Ministers about who has not cleared a document. We need to consider some new criteria of selectivity in that regard.
All of this has to be presented to the British people in the next few months. It will be mixed with the question of the euro. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, suggested another referendum. Maybe it is all the same referendum. Perhaps the referendum will be about Europe. I believe that young people see what Europe is about. If there is to be the idea of a wider referendum, let us recognise that the euro is part of it. It should be part of our civics teaching in schools because, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans said, we must ensure that this is part of the wider vision that we present to the British people.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, perhaps I may follow on from one point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, and apologise to the Minister and to my noble friend on the Front Bench for the fact that I shall not be here at the end of the debate. That is very regrettable, but I had undertaken to visit a friend going into hospital and I had not appreciated the lateness at which the debate would end. For that I apologise.
At the outset, I should like to make it clear that I have no fundamental quarrel with the idea of a convention. However, it has seemed to me at times that the purpose of the convention has been somewhat confused. At times, the main purpose has been to bring Europe closer to the people; at times, the purpose has been to make it more comprehensible; at other times, the purpose has been to make Europe ready for enlargement; and at other times, the purpose has been to define the competencies of the different institutions of the European Union. I believe that the latter is particularly important and something that I would welcome.
The matters being debated in the convention are complex. We are fortunate in this debate to have heard speakers who have been very closely involved with the affairs of the European Union. I refer to the noble Lords, Lord Grenfell, Lord Maclennan and Lord Tomlinson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, who have been
934
directly involved in the convention. We shall hear later from the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Williamson.
However, with great respect to all those who are familiar with so many of the terms, on so many of the institutions and so many of the mechanisms—talk of pillars, subsidiarity, proportionality, qualified majority voting as distinct from majority voting, the high representative as distinct from the Commissioner for External Affairs and even the President of the Council as opposed to the President of the Commission—I would suggest that not one person in 10,000 understands those terms. The idea that the convention will make the institutions of Europe comprehensible to the people of this country is a delusion. It will not do that.
It seems that in many ways the convention is in danger of going off the rails. We have the proposals on subsidiarity. The hills have certainly been in labour but they have produced a very small brown mouse indeed. The recommendations of the subsidiarity group, Group 4, are that legislative proposals should be submitted to national parliaments for a view—"for a view". There is no guarantee, nor could there be, that national parliaments will be allowed a vote or that governments will pay any attention or that the Commission will pay any attention or that the Council of Ministers will pay any attention to what national parliaments recommend.
That was conceded by the conclusions of Group 4 which stated:
"Such a mechanism"
—a mechanism for considering subsidiarity—
"should not hinder or delay the legislative process".
Perish the thought!
The House of Commons Select Committee on European legislation quite rightly made the comment:
"A real watchdog not just conveys views, it barks and occasionally bites".
The proposals for subsidiarity need to be put in the overall context of more majority voting. It appears that these modest—modest—proposals are being traded in exchange for more majority voting.
Subsidarity, as it operates at present, seems to be conceived back to front, if I may use such an inelegant phrase. Subsidiarity seems to be seen as something delegated from the national to the supranational, whereas one could equally argue that it could be the other way around. Instead of all the national parliamentarians being summoned by "Prince Giscard" to his cloth of gold, perhaps it would be more appropriate if the MEPs and representatives of European institutions had gone to national parliaments and national governments to ask them about the improvements that could be made to the machinery for decision making.
There is one way only to demonstrate that subsidiarity has been taken seriously. That is to put forward proposals for the transfer of competencies back from European Union institutions to nation states. I do not see why that cannot be considered. The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, kindly gave way when I

935
asked him about the acquis communautaire. I was not suggesting for one minute that the whole acquis communautaire should be dismantled. I was merely suggesting that somewhere, some time, a law passed by the European Union might have out-lived its usefulness. But no, in the European Union, democracy is a one-way street.
Subsidiarity is a small bone that has been thrown into the conference. As the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, said, what is actually happening is a fight between the triangle of the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament. They are all fighting for their own turf and not for considerations of good governance. Good governance seems to come a long way down the list of priorities.
Against the proposal for subsidiarity we need to place the proposals that the EU Commission itself is demanding, which are quite extraordinarily far reaching. As put forward by Mr Prodi's speech of 5th December, they are suggesting that foreign affairs should be the prerogative of the Commission alone. The post of the high representative and the Commissioner for External Affairs should be merged into that of a secretary who would eventually have total responsibility for foreign and defence policies. Considerations of policy on taxation and justice matters are to have no veto under the proposals of the Commission. The EU's external frontiers are to be policed by EU frontier guards. "Why?", one might ask. What is the real pragmatic reason for that? Any country that is capable of being a state is surely capable of policing its own frontiers and it is hardly likely to be strengthened or improved by a so far non-existent, yet-to-be-tried, EU frontier force.
"But never mind", we are told, "all these are only proposals". They are put forward only by the Commission and they should not be, in the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, "lovingly dissected". They should not be examined at all. But, from what one reads in the press, the ideas have some backing within the convention from the smaller countries and from Germany. Germany is developing an idea different from that of the Government; that is, instead of a President of the Council, a President of the Commission with greatly strengthened powers. It would be "a new kind of European Kaiser". These are not my words but those of the Minister of State, Mr MacShane, at the Foreign Office.
Then we have the issue of the single legal personality. The significance of that has been disputed. I have read what the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, said about it: that the EU already has legal personality and that it is not a great step. I have also read what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson: that this does not lead to a collapse of the pillars and that a collapse of the pillars is not synonymous with the abolition of inter-governmentalism. I do not feel qualified to judge those arguments, but the real concern on which I hope the Minister will comment at the end of the debate is the extent to which the pillared approach will be compromised as a result of the convention. There are those areas in which inter-governmentalism has been
936
the rule and the ECJ has competence only where there is joint decision-making. We have the impression that inter-governmentalism, in justice, in home affairs and internal security, is being transferred to the old Pillar One; to the EU itself.
The real reverse in the convention seems to me to come with the charter of fundamental rights. Previously, the Government were proud of the fact that the charter would not be legally binding and therefore it was a success. I referred earlier to the remarks of Mr Vaz and to the Beano. The Minister said that of course the Beano could be referred to in court—but not, I believe, as a source of authority or a source for judicial decisions. But we will examine carefully what the noble Baroness said about horizontal articles. It seems likely that the incorporation of the charter into the treaties will mean that more areas will be as justiciable.
The EU will have a constitution. The Foreign Secretary has said that that is not significant and that a golf club has a constitution. St Andrew's may have a constitution, but it does not have a rapid reaction force, a currency, a budget or a passport. And a constitution implies that the parts derive their authority from the centre rather than the other way round. When a charter is incorporated into the treaties, it will free the Commission to secure fundamental rights by proposing legislation particularly now that the EU has a legal identity and can be brought to court.
The British Government have been pushing forward the idea of a longer term presidency for the Council. Increasingly, I would have thought, that idea looks somewhat irrelevant and is likely to be bypassed. It seems to have one flaw in it; that is, can we really believe that Mr Berlusconi, the Prime Minister, Mr Blair, or President Chirac, will cut off all their contact with the outside world or with the United States and submit only to the authority of the one spokesman as a long-term president of the Council? I find it a rather unreal idea.
I submit that much of what is coming out of the convention is somewhat alarming. We have the usual soothing words, the implication that much of what has been said can be added to the mound of unread paper in Brussels. But much more likely is that ground will be yielded to the integrationists again and that will not enhance the good governance of this country. That is really what should never be lost sight of and what this debate is all about.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I greatly welcome the opportunity to debate the Convention on the Future of Europe. The Select Committee on the European Union, of which I am a member, in its 30th report of 25th July recommended that a debate on a government Motion be held no later than the end of the year. By submitting the debate now, a few days later, the Government have given us an extra Christmas present; that is, the opportunity to read or re-read the myriad documents submitted to the convention. I did that and I

937
assure the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, who looks a little put out, that I also had some nice presents from my wife and others.
The 30th report of the Select Committee is useful because it brings together the facts about the launch of the convention and its organisation and describes in a summary form some of the key issues in indicating how this House should be kept informed and should have a role to play. Time has moved on since then, but the Select Committee has been fulfilling its function in a timely manner.
Today I do not want to concentrate on the organisation of the convention or, indeed, of the European institutions. I want to concentrate on what I consider to be the substantive issues where the convention is already well advanced and in particular on a treaty establishing a constitution for Europe. That is the crux of the matter and it is difficult to underestimate its importance, although it has not been fully registered either in the other member states or, more particularly, with the British public.
With the draft treaty go the other substantive issues which have been discussed in the working groups of the convention and reports have come forward. I base my remarks mainly on the helpful fourth and fifth reports from the parliamentary representatives. They contain not only the draft constitutional treaty but the full text. the final reports or conclusions of the working groups on five subjects which, in my opinion, are critical to the conclusion of the convention—and its saleability or not—to the public in the European Union, in particular in the United Kingdom.
The first is the role of national parliaments. The second is the possible incorporation of the charter of fundamental rights into the treaties and the possible accession of the Community or Union to the European Convention on Human Rights. The third are the complementary competencies which the working group sensibly describes as "supporting measures". In my view, the draft treaty will need to restate specifically the exclusive and shared competencies of the Union and also the areas where the Union can assist or supplement national policies where that is in the common interest of the Union and member states.
The treaty must also specifically include the long-established principle which has not always convinced Eurosceptics in the UK: that all powers not conferred by the treaty remain with the member states. I believe that when a full draft constitutional treaty comes forward the British public will be surprised to see how few are the exclusive competencies of the Union and that supporting measures will be a much greater focus for attention at that time.
The fourth is the question of the possible conferral on the Union of a legal personality, by which the Union would have the right to conclude treaties and to become a member of international organisations. Many noble Lords have referred to that. The fifth is subsidiarity, but if the definition of "exclusive and shared competencies" and areas where supporting measures could be taken by the Union were definitively settled in a new treaty, and the monitoring
938
role of national parliaments were clearly established, the issue of subsidiarity would become much less important.
Sixthly, there is the issue of the simplification of legislative procedures, the report on which came forward from the working group rather later. I make my traditional point of asking the Government to keep their mind not only on primary legislation but also on secondary legislation. As we know, a vast amount of the acquis communautaire is secondary legislation and a vast amount of the problems quoted in the British media—some of which are not problems but are still quoted there—arise from secondary legislation which is subject to a different control—or, one might say, to an absence of control.
I know that there are other working groups—on economic governance, internal and external security and external relations—but others have spoken to those issues and I shall not go into them today. I want to concentrate on the constitutional treaty and the six issues I have highlighted because, ultimately, they are likely to coalesce into one enormous issue. The changes in the role of national parliaments, the status of the charter of fundamental rights, the definition of Union competencies, the legal personality of the Union, the application of subsidiarity and the simplification of legislative procedures will, I emphasise, all be provided for in the new treaty. So all these issues will go eventually to governments, to parliaments and, we hope, to peoples, and that is where we need to concentrate.
Almost 50 years ago, when I was a fairly well-informed young man, the Treaty of Rome was signed. Apart from the rise and fall of the Iron Curtain, it was perhaps the most important political event in Western Europe in that period. However, I do not recall that I ever knew that it had happened at the time. That is perhaps not surprising because on 26th March 1957 The Times devoted five inches of narrow column to it and the Daily Telegraph had 16 separate news items on its front page, none of which referred to the Treaty of Rome and its signing.
I do not want to make too much of the sins of the past. I make the point only to stress the importance of a new constitutional treaty which will considerably replace the Treaty of Rome, as amended, inter alia. by the Treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice, which we have debated ad nauseam. It will require not only intensive scrutiny but will need to command the support of the British people. It is a major venture. It is a strategy of calculated risk. If the British people accept the new constitutional treaty, including those elements which derive from existing treaties and the main conclusions on the six key points I have mentioned, then generalised opposition to the European Union will have little purpose or force.
I, for one, do not agree with the oft repeated point that no one ever provides enough information on the European Union for the British public. My very old house contains so many books on the European Union, which are printed in Britain and published

939
every week, that there is a serious risk of the room in which I keep them on the first floor collapsing. There are masses of documents.
However, despite the excellent efforts of our national representatives and the widespread availability of documents, the British public, as we all know, are more interested in the future of Terry Venables as manager of Leeds United than in a new constitutional treaty for Europe. That is the current situation. In due course, this will be an important point. It does not give me vast cause for concern at the moment because we are still only at the beginning. The convention itself has yet to take a position or establish options—perhaps by the middle of this year—but that will be a new, important step. Thereafter the governments of the member states will have to decide what they can or cannot support. Unanimity applies. It is the governments and peoples of the member states, including the United Kingdom, who have the sole power of decision. The Government have given assurances about consulting Parliament at the penultimate stage, as the Select Committee indicates in paragraph 51 of its report.
I turn now, very briefly, to a small selection of important points in the working groups' reports. As to the parliamentary role, there is a proposal for a mechanism allowing national parliaments to convey early in the legislative process their view on the compliance or not of a legislative proposal with the principle of subsidiarity. That is good as far as it goes but, on this issue, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick—I do sometimes agree with him—that this is not a block, or even a temporary block, on the progress of a draft law. It is a step but it is not what was originally anticipated.
Other recommendations are useful. For example, the open door procedure in the Council when it legislates and a new look at COSAC or a replacement.
As to competencies, if we are to have a new treaty we need to define the kinds of competencies and the policies or activities to which they apply. Looking at the text, I believe that that is the intention set out in the draft summary constitutional treaty. It is a very important point for us because, in my view, it is the only way in which the UK public can be reassured in relation to a new treaty.
Finally, we must not lose sight of the fact that for our fellow citizens the key issue is whether the actions of the EU are or are not good for them. The details of the institutions are matters of profound indifference to most of our citizens. For them, it is not whether the Commission has 15 or 25 members that matters, but what it proposes; it is not whether the Council meets in five or eight configurations that matters, but what it decides. The future must surely be to look towards a new constitutional treaty, with some of the changes that I have highlighted, and to concentrate our attention on the value or not of the proposals which come forward from the Commission and the decisions made in the Council and the Parliament.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, the convention and governmental decisions to be made upon it represent a critical stage in the journey of the European Union. It is critical because the very existence of the convention is an acknowledgement that the present framework is inadequate. Clearly so, when in the past 50 years it has sought to deal with a divided Europe and, in the next 50 or more, it will seek to deal with the enlarged Europe of at least 25 nations and more than 300 million peoples. The question which the convention debates, and on which governments must decide, is how will that Europe best be governed.
There are two alternatives. The first, if the noble Lord, Lord Howell, will permit me to use his words, is the route of a minimum of legislation coupled with flexibility and national manoeuvrability. I hope that I have his words correct. For me, that is such a challenging combination of the nebulous and the unpredictable as to defy any reasoned democratic analysis. I regret that I have to disagree with the noble Lord and to adopt the more realistic route—that is, a system of legislation which governments and peoples will acknowledge to be the basis upon which they are governed.
Whether such a new framework is in a treaty or in a constitution matters not. It is not what we call the piece of legislation that counts but what it says and does. In any new framework, any new legislation, there will be technical routes—institutional, political and so on— which must be followed. However, in the words of President Havel of the Czech Republic, such technical efforts,
"are doomed to failure if they do not grow out of something deeper, out of generally held values".
The democratic strength of any new Europe will depend not so much on its institutions but more on the values they practise.
I shall refer to two such values. First, fundamental rights. A recent commentator described the present European system as a combination of an unaccountable Commission, an undemocratic Council, a weak European Parliament and a Court of Justice with restricted powers. Pungent, but nevertheless having some accuracy. Yet the European Convention on Human Rights declares that such rights are
"best maintained by an effective political democracy".
In this new Europe, with its new government, how would its citizens be protected as to their rights, as between themselves and its institutions—whether they be citizens acting as individuals, through a trade union or through corporate enterprise? How would the balance be struck between them and the European government?
The present treaty offers no solution. Article 230 is extremely restricted as to the protection that it seeks to give to individuals. Alternatively, if the European convention were to be incorporated into new European legislation, it would have the same effect as in our country. Rights would be identifiable, and remedies would be available and enforceable. We should know where we stood. What of the alternative

941
put forward by the working group on the charter, which recommends that it should be incorporated into any new legislation? If it is so incorporated in its present form, it will merely prolong and exacerbate the democratic deficit of which all complain.
Why? The first part of the charter basically sets out convention rights. It adds nothing. The second part deals with economic and social rights which most European countries either do not recognise in the legislation or, if they do, give it limited enforceability. So what does this second part do for our citizens in Europe? It sets out new rights against any discrimination; an unqualified right to strike; the right to social security and pensions; and the right to environmental protection. Are they rights, or, as some politicians describe them, the contents of a political document?
In recent debates politicians have described the charter as a combination not only of rights but of freedoms and principles. As a citizen, I ask myself which are rights, which are freedoms and which are principles. What protects me? There is no answer.
If a citizen is to be told to look at the terms of the charter within the treaty, to study the convention commentary and then to bear in mind the horizontal provisions, he or she will say these are my rights, through this tortuous route, and will reject such a system as not being in his interests.
The charter provides no remedies. Any decent governmental relationship with the people provides for remedies as between the people and government itself. The charter is silent. There is no declaration, no judicial review, no protective measures and no compensation. Is that democracy in this new Europe? I think not. My noble friend the Minister talks of disillusion. It will surely set in if we enact rights without remedies—because that means rights with no value. So, whether in the convention or the charter, a decision should be made to protect the citizen.
My second fundamental theme as regards rights relates to Justice and home affairs. In the new convention thinking, this is called freedom, security and justice. Article 21(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
"The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government".
It is in the field of justice and home affairs that the people most expect that will to be reflected. They may not understand the institutions of Europe, but they do understand concepts of justice, criminal law and home affairs. Since the Tampere Council, we have developed European legislation on terrorism, cross-border crime, racism and immigration.
It is being debated whether this sector should become the first pillar—in other words, whether it should be exempt from parliamentary scrutiny and be proposed by the Commission, determined by the Council of Ministers, often, I am sure, by political compromise, and under the new system by qualified majority voting. Is that the way our citizens would
942
expect justice and home affairs legislation to be enacted? I think not. Surely there must be something more.
I make some limited suggestions in this field of freedom, security and justice. Legislation from Europe at all stages should be drafted in the framework of the fundamental rights of the convention, or whatever— the values of democracy that we recognise. Any legislation should be compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights or the charter, and should be certified to be so, as is done in our Parliament, by those who seek to enact it.
There should be a defender of the people—a much more expressive description than "ombudsman"—whose job in Europe would be to check that legislation was so compliant and that it was properly drafted, comprehensible and likely to be efficient.
There should be a citizens' audit each year in Europe as to the implementation of new legislation and its effectiveness in the field of justice and home affairs. Action on this front must be discrete and determined, not scattered. It should deal with terrorism, drugs and the trafficking of human beings. Any new system in this area must be transparent, accountable and understandable.
It is clear that debates on the convention of Europe introduce a sense of timelessness in the minds of contributors to this debate, and I shall come to a conclusion. The values of which I have spoken should be acceptable to Europhile or Europhobe. They merely represent the basic democratic concepts which any citizen would expect to operate between himself and those who govern him. Our representatives in the convention, our government Ministers before and at the IGC, would enjoy enormous influence, and deservedly so. I invite them all to remember that disengagement by citizens should be avoided. They should always remember the words of Thomas Jefferson:
"That government is the strongest of which every man feels himself a part".
6.59 p.m.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I shall be critical of the European Union, so I shall first establish my record as a long-time supporter of a united Europe. I first became a supporter of a united Europe in the 1940s. I was inspired by Schuman and Monnet, who promoted the unification of Europe as a means of preventing another war in western Europe, especially between France and Germany. At the end of the Second World War, on mentioning which I would no doubt draw comment from the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Richmond, if he were present, I spent six months in hospital recovering from a war wound. That gave me time to think. It seemed to me that the most important thing one could do in life was to work towards the prevention of further wars. That is why I went into the Foreign Office and politics.
I rejoiced when the European Coal and Steel Community was set up. My first job in the Foreign Office was on the European defence community desk

943
concerned with the creation of a proposed European army. I regretted very much that Anthony Eden, the then Foreign Secretary, would make no move to support the project. If it had been created, it would have transformed positively the life of Europe thereafter. I deplored Anthony Eden's failure to take part in the Messina conference. We had a golden opportunity. We were so much in demand by the six nations who set up the first communities that we could have written our own treaty more or less as we wanted it. That was a tremendous mistake.
I am no longer an expert on the European Union. Regrettably, I have not spent much time on it for quite a while. But I do believe that the objective of making impossible a major war in Europe has been successfully achieved. There have been little wars in the Balkans, which will not recur. We should no longer be concerned about a major war in Europe. We do not seem to be concerned about it; except that Helmut Kohl, unfortunately, proposed the euro with the justification that it would help to prevent a major war in Europe.
But there is still a strong drive towards centralisation and standardisation, even though the membership of the European Union is becoming more diverse. At the same time, Europe is becoming less popular. The noble Baroness who introduced the debate referred to "disillusionment and disengagement among citizens". That is also my impression.
It is said that the average person is unenthusiastic about Europe because it does not have a democratic structure. I do not think that people talk about that in the pubs, or that they know whether there is in Europe a democratic or non-democratic structure. It is said that hostility to Europe exists because it is too remote. I do not think that that either is talked about in the pubs. The main cause of lack of enthusiasm for the European Union is, I believe, that it is felt to be too close, because—to use the useful expression of my noble friend Lord Hurd of Westwell—it meddles in the nooks and crannies of the citizen's life. In the citizen's view, it meddles in an ill-informed and clumsy way. Noble Lords will have encountered many examples of that.
I shall mention an example that affects me. I declare an interest as a farmer. The Physical Agents (Vibrations) Directive was adopted to safeguard the health of people who drill the roads using vibrating machines. I would hate to have to operate them. But the directive also affects farm tractor drivers, which is why I have an interest. It seems to ignore the fact that farm tractor drivers now drive in air-conditioned cabs with good springing and radios. Although there is very little risk to farmers' backs if they drive tractors for fairly long spells, the directive limits their driving time to seven hours in 24.
That is crazy in this country. If the weather is suitable at harvest time, farmers must harvest for 24 hours a day because they never know whether from the next day until the next month the weather will make it impossible to harvest. The directive may be all right for countries with a stable summer climate, but not for this country. It originated in the Health and
944
Consumer Protection Directorate of the Commission. Did they discuss it with the farming sector of the Community? It is impossible to imagine that they did; otherwise they would never have introduced it.
How do we get these directives, which are regarded as meddling in the nooks and crannies? One factor is that for a long time there have been too many Commissioners. With expansion, we now face the possibility of even more Commissioners. We need a radical reduction in the number of Commissioners to fewer than, or perhaps half, the number of member countries. If we have too many Commissioners, they will busy themselves thinking up ideas. They are not busy enough working on worthwhile ideas. I put forward that serious suggestion. I would view with alarm any proposal to make the President of the Commission the President of Europe. I am not enthusiastic about the proposal mentioned by the Minister to strengthen the Commissioners' powers of initiative. That seems to be the source of the trouble.
When we achieve expansion, there will be 25 different democracies with different traditions, histories, cultures, languages, religions and legal codes. It is strange that, despite the prospect of increased diversity and variety among members, we are talking about an even tighter system of standardisation. That is the opposite of what we should be doing. We should be looking for something looser. I have grave doubts about the success of the European Union if, with so many diverse members, it tightens regulation.
The Union will stretch for incredible distances in each direction—east and west, north and south, from the Baltic to Malta, from Poland to Portugal. It defies common sense to have across that area standardisation of almost everything, which seems to be the objective of many involved in the European Union. The problem of meddling in the nooks and crannies of citizens' lives is increasingly likely to affect the popularity of Europe. I want to see the European venture survive and prosper, but the Union should fundamentally rethink this problem. I doubt whether the work of the convention will lift the feeling of "disillusionment and disengagement" unless it deals with it.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Owen: My Lords, the Government have a monumental task. I think they understand how difficult it will be. There is obviously a wish in the Government to go along with the single treaty. I would like it confirmed that they have not yet formally accepted it. As someone who wants to have much greater simplification and clarity, if a single treaty is possible, I would like to see it.
But there are formidable differences to it. It was not an accident that, after all the negotiations, we came up with the pillared structure in the Maastricht Treaty, which was extremely well negotiated, and that that has stayed through both the Amsterdam and Nice negotiations. All these issues are extremely closely linked.
I am not a lawyer, but I agree with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, said about the problems of the new European Charter of

945
Fundamental Rights. I am immensely pleased that this Government made the European Court of Human Rights justiciable in this country, and I have long wanted it to happen. I have always wanted to find a way in which the European Community could also be a party to the treaty. But I refer to the European Community and Community treaties. There are real problems in the European Union treaty being associated with the European Convention on Human Rights, because we have agreed that the European Court of Justice will not be involved in the intergovernmental pillars, pillars II and III. We have done so for good reason. Again, I hope that the Government have not yet accepted that they will change their longstanding position. The Prime Minister has said time after time that the European Court of Justice will not be involved in pillars II and III. It is slightly involved in some aspects of pillar III, but it is not at all involved in pillar II. That becomes even more important now that defence is coming into pillar II through ESDP.
If we accept that we should not cross that line and bring the European Court of Justice in, the European Union in its totality cannot go into the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Justice would have to go into pillar II, because it would be immediately appealed against on the grounds of incompatibility. We have to find a way of keeping the pillared structure within a single treaty.
That brings us to the complex issue of the legal personality. Explaining their negotiations in Amsterdam, this Government proudly claimed that they had not conceded legal personality when they had made the purely practical and, I think, welcome decision to allow the European Union to undertake negotiations under Article 24. This was not a full legal personality, but it has allowed the European Union to make two agreements, both in the Balkans. Some people have said that it is partly a legal personality. The British Government's position is as clear as daylight: it is not legal personality and it has not changed the competencies.
If we were to go to legal personality in a single treaty we would certainly have to differentiate between full legal personality and partial legal personality. That is very difficult to do in a single treaty. Some people have said that that is the key to being able to go to a single treaty. With the best will in the world, having looked at the issues, we may be driven back to believing that, although we need simplification, we cannot have a single treaty. We can incorporate a constitutional declaration in the Treaty of the European Union—I have no objection to the basic structure of the Giscard proposals as they evolve—but we still keep that as an addition to a separate European Union Treaty and we keep the European Community Treaty, which we know and understand and which has been built on for many decades, and thus keep the intergovernmental separation from the supranational.
If we go for a single treaty, this House will have to look very carefully at it. The implications will be considerable. It is not just a form of decision-making that we separate out in the pillars; it is a structure—an intergovernmental structure on the one hand, where
946
decisions are taken where the member states are in the last analysis responsible, and a supranational structure, where we have ceded power from this House to the Commission and rightly given considerable powers to the European Parliament to control that supranational power. The treaties explain that and makes those things clear. I believe that we will end up rationally having to defend a continuation of the two treaties, but with an overarching wording and constitutional treaty that is understandable, concise and clear and gives better understanding for the general public in all these issues.
We then come to the question of the High Representative—Javier Solana at present. I have always wanted the position to be filled and he has clone it extremely well. It is necessary to clarify his position. I cannot see any real case for a Commissioner for external affairs when we have a High Representative. It is impossible to double-hat him. We should not countenance that for one moment. These are separate responsibilities. He should be given a power of initiative. I can see a case for him to be chairman of the Foreign Ministers, but that comes back to how we want the Council to be organised overall.
I have heard people speak in favour of the proposition that the 25 or 27 heads. of government should elect a person—not one of their own number—to act as Mr Europe, as President of the Council. We know that the smaller countries are utterly opposed to that. The Benelux countries have made it clear that under no circumstances will they allow that to happen. Given their integrationist position, I am surprised that they take that view. If I were a long-term integrationist, I would welcome the proposition. It has, however, grave dangers for my wish for a unique European Union with a supranational element and an intergovernmental element. I do not think this proposal will fly, but we all know that we have to grapple with the problem of the chairing or leadership of the European Council and agree on a solution to it when we go to 25 members and even beyond that. There are some serious problems. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, mentioned the veto principle. I would love it to be possible, but I find it hard to believe that it will ever be negotiated. It has worked in the UN. but there is a lot of hostility to it there and there would be a lot more hostility to bringing it into the European Union. We will have to go on with the present structure with intergovernmental unanimity.
There is an understanding among colleagues that small countries do not exercise their powers on this issue. For a long time when there were still 15 members in the Council we lived with Greece having a very different view of many aspects of policy in the Balkans. I watched it day by day. The Greeks never pressed their luck too much, apart from on the one issue of the name of Macedonia. They lost a Foreign Secretary on the issue and had 250,000 people on the streets of Thessalonica. That issue was of vital interest to them, but on other aspects relating to the Balkans they rallied to the majority. There are mechanisms in the CFSP for

947
rallying to the majority and being able to declare your position. We have a lot of useful working procedures that deal with that.
I also value the idea that the presidency of the Council rotates. Member states can identify with it. If there is a strong feeling that they need a leader, it would be much better to choose one from among their members. Current Prime Ministers or Presidents would know when somebody was in a secure position and had three or four years before an election. They would know whether that colleague's political situation meant that they could afford to give 18 months or two years to the job. That is a perfectly acceptable period. I think a year is sufficient, but six months is not. Most people agree that we must go to year-long presidencies.
The alternative is to group countries into numbers of people and have one big country leading. There is something unique and valuable in the idea of rotating presidencies. In a group situation there is value in the six or so big countries being able to provide the leadership of the Council, and maybe the leadership of the Foreign Affairs Council would also be held by the big country in the group. With Poland coming in we now have to think of six groupings. There are four large countries. Spain is the next one, but it is the same size as Poland, so we are talking about six. We have to think imaginatively about how a group would share out chairmanship of the Councils, each having a portfolio. That is possible in a grouping. The big countries would not have them all. The presidency would be held perhaps for a year. If people were happy for longer periods of rotation, it might be 18 months or two years.
If we decide to let the Council choose an individual as president, it will not be long before there is a great objection among the people of Europe to the post being filled by election only among the heads of government. People will then demand that it is directly elected, leading to all the problems of direct election.
These are immensely difficult issues. Although there is an appearance of agreement, reading between the lines and seeing the way the different elements are structured, it will be difficult to pull the whole thing together, particularly in the agreed timescale. Although there has been some value in putting some people on the convention from Cabinets, there is a danger of blurring the distinction. The final response and deal must be between heads of government. However, they cannot go through a Nice procedure on this issue. We cannot have this cobbled up in the middle of the night with no redress available, and such compromises never returning to this House. This is about a constitution; in other words, something that will last. This time we must say in this House, "In no way are we having this".
We are talking about a legislative process that we must go through painfully and slowly watching it and concentrating on the detail, such as the commas and the small print. This House must assert itself, not just along party lines; we must simply say that we are not
948
putting up with this. Everyone agrees that Nice was a disaster in terms of procedure. We must take our time over this process.
There is now pressure building up for the idea that the IGC should take place during the Italian presidency. I understand that the latter would like to have the second Treaty of Rome, but I do not believe that that is possible to take the proposals from the convention at the end of June and put forward a completely agreed procedure—one that is satisfactory to legislators—by the end of December in a country that is conceding a very big concession. We have never before had a written constitution, but now we are to have one.
I have two final points to make. We need to consider whether we ought to have a constitutional court along the lines of the one in Germany. France, too, has such a court to some extent with its Conseil constitutionel, as is the case with other countries. If we are going for a written constitution, I should like us to consider the concept of a constitutional court.
Everyone has put forward frightfully sensible proposals for discussions, and so on, on the subject of subsidiarity. But we all know that that is no use: the concept has to have power and a political mechanism. It is my suggestion when we have been consulted on the issue and do not like it, the Commission should have to take it back and reconsider the proposal because a "national parliament" has objected to it. We must have some mechanism after that. I suggest that one-third of the national parliaments should be involved. If one third of the national parliaments object to a proposal on grounds of subsidiarity and because they do not believe that this area of policy should be taken on by the Commission, the latter can still put it to the Council, but if a third of national parliaments still object they should then be able to demand that such a proposition goes through the Council by unanimity. That would give some real power to national parliaments. It would also link us into the process.
It is no use relying on the European Court of Justice because it has not ruled on any issue of subsidiarity. 1t considers this to be political. It is an interesting aspect for such a body, which some of us believe to be a highly political court, to be deciding that such a concept is political. But it will not be the arbiters on this subject. But if one-third of the national parliaments object to the proposal on the grounds of subsidiarity, I suggest that the decision should then be unanimous in the Council and not dealt with by way of a qualified majority vote.
I have outlined just some of my ideas, and I do not wish to proceed any further. The Government face a most difficult issue. Although I believe that they are approaching it in the right way, we need to have more detailed debates on some of the complex questions involved.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, to make any worthwhile comment on the proposals put forward by the Convention on the Future of Europe, I believe that

949
we need to look at the history—to see how the people of this country have been misled over the past 30 years. I could say "lied to", but I shall instead use the word "misled" because, after all, a rose,
"By any other name would smell as sweet".
The people of this country have been misled, and gradually, inexorably, drawn step by step into the quicksand of a European super state, without ever being asked whether this is the road down which they wish to travel.
The misleading began in 1973 when Mr Heath assured Parliament and the people of this country that ratifying the Treaty of Accession would mean no loss of essential sovereignty. Mr. Wilson manfully carried on the misleading in 1975 when he called the referendum on our membership of the Common Market. Again, were told that there would be no loss of sovereignty, no danger of losing the pound sterling, and that the Common Market was just that—a trading area with no political ramifications.
Since then a succession of treaties—the Single European Act, Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice— have led us down the integrationist track, while our politicians have continued to pretend that what was happening was not really happening at all and while the British public were passengers on the train without ever being asked whether or not they wanted a ticket.
So where has this deliberately insidious process, this salami-slicing of our liberty, left us? Where are we now? I remind your Lordships again that the European Union, which we only agreed to join as a common market, already has its own parliament, its own executive, its own supreme court, its own currency, its own flag, and its own anthem. EU law is supreme: Parliament must enact any laws that have been agreed by the Council of Ministers even if the British Government voted against that law in the Council; in other words, it must enact that law on pain of unlimited fine in the Luxembourg court.
Our fishing industry all but disappeared on the first day of this year—the shameful result of Mr Heath and the Foreign Office agreeing that British fishing and fishermen were expendable in the greater interests of joining the Common Market. Our farming industry is in danger of going the same way after 25 years in the CAP. All this, after British taxpayers have contributed hundreds of billions of pounds to the unaccountable and unelected Brussels bureaucracy to squander, mostly on helping prop up our competitors.
Meanwhile, our industrial and intellectual competitiveness has been eroded by the stream of directives and regulations emanating from Brussels in the name of Euro- harmonisation. Under this Government and their love affair with the EU, Britain has slipped from fourth in the international competitive league to 12th now.
So far, so bad—but worse, much worse, is to come. If the proposals of the convention are to be taken at face value, the future of this country is nothing more than European federalism. The paperwork that I was sent by our excellent research department in the House of Lords weighed eight pounds 10 ounces, which is
950
about the weight of a good healthy baby. How wonderfully typical it is of the way that the EU operates that this Euro-baby should have as midwives a triumvirate of federalists led by a president with a reputation tarnished by his association with the unsavoury President Bokassa.
Unsurprisingly, under such a triumvirate, the proposals that are emerging are unequivocally integrationist and federalist, even if less extravagant than the naked power-grab put forward by the European Commission, which demands that Brussels should have the power to intervene with force in the domestic affairs of member states. Have we really come to this? It gives me no comfort that the Foreign Office has rubbished this proposal. This Government and the Foreign Office have a track record that inspires little confidence. We were repeatedly told that the Government were not in favour of a written constitution, but apparently they are now in favour of it. We were told that they were not in favour of formalising the European charter of fundamental rights—the very document that, as we have heard, a government Minister, Mr Keith Vaz, said had no more value than a comic. Yet it seems that the charter is now to be stuffed down our throats. Government denials are clearly to be taken with truckloads of salt.
The way power is shifting in the European Union can clearly be seen from the outline constitution. Article I of the draft requires the European states,
"while retaining their national identities"—
presumably that means being allowed to play the national anthem at football matches—
"to closely co-ordinate their policies at the European level and administer certain common competencies on a federal basis".
Article 4 requires explicit recognition of the legal personality of the Union.
Article 5 proposes to embed the European charter of fundamental rights into the constitution. Article 8 establishes the primacy of EU law over laws of nation states, and in the glib Eurospeak with which we have become all to familiar it sets out the obligation of "loyal co-operation" of member states vis-à-vis the Union. And so on—a litany of centralising measures, with the sole aim of creating a United States of Europe, which, after all, is Mr Giscard's favoured term for his federal love child.
There is a passing reference to "subsidiarity"—a concept which, as has been made clear today, no one understands. Lip-service is also paid to an enhanced role for national parliaments, but, as one of my noble friends pointed out, that is a mere fig leaf. We should not be too grateful for that, any more than someone who has been mugged should be grateful to a mugger for giving him the Tube fare home.
I would expect a British Prime Minister, who has Britain's interests at heart, to resist. this federalist nonsense. But, no. In a revealing speech at Cardiff, to which reference has been made by many speakers, Mr Blair amazingly said that,
"we need more Europe, not less".

951
He must be the only person in the country who really believes that. He wants a written constitution. He wants more power given to EU institutions—the Council, the Court, the Parliament, and even that sunset home for political failures, the Commission. That power has to come from somewhere. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, that this is not a zero-sum game. The power that is given to the centre has to come from the nation states.
The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, asks for some suggestions for his committees in Brussels. I ask him the following questions. Where are the proposals to reduce the powers of the unelected centre? Where are the proposals to return power and competencies to the nation states where they belong? There are no such proposals. Where is it proposed to cut the Commission down to size, to remove its right to initiate legislation? Why should the Commission have this power when it has no democratic mandate whatever? As my noble friend Lord Lamont pointed out, the Commission wants more power, not less.
Where are the proposals to reduce the EU budget to a manageable size by returning agricultural and environmental policy to the nation states? Where are the proposals to reverse the devastation caused to our fisheries and marine environment by repatriating the common fisheries policy? Above all, where are the proposals for a referendum on this federalist agenda, which is anti-democratic, anti-parliamentary and anti-British? Scotland was given a referendum on devolution, as was Wales. Even London was allowed a referendum on electing the disastrous Mayor whom it saw fit to elect.
This so-called debate on "the future of Europe" is a sham: it is merely the Euro-elites talking to each other. They ritually complain about the "democratic deficit" but show absolutely no appetite for making the fundamental changes that are necessary. Voters will have no more influence over the Council or the Commission than they have now, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, pointed out. The influence which they have at the moment is absolutely zero, and it is not going to improve.
I remind Mr Blair of Winston Churchill's words in 1953 when he said:
"We are with Europe. but not of it. We are linked but not comprised. We are associated but not absorbed".
Who is right, Mr Blair or Mr Churchill? We will very soon have to choose.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am not one of those who believed that the convention was going to be a weak-joke sort of organisation. Indeed, it has become, as some of us predicted, a cover for ceding more power to the institutions of the European Union and for taking further giant steps towards a united states of Europe. That is what it has become under the leadership of Mr Giscard d'Estaing.
952
It is 30 years since we joined the Common Market. I and many others were opposed to joining because we knew even then that it was not about a free trade area, but about the creation of a European superstate. Because we warned that it was not about a free trade area but about building a united states of Europe, we have for a very long time been vilified, insulted, and labelled as extremists and lunatics. Nevertheless, that was my view then, and it is my view now.
Now, however, we have been vindicated, have we not? Mr Giscard d'Estaing has blown the gaffe. His preliminary draft constitutional treaty lays down a scheme for administering the European Union on a federal basis. That is what he said—on a federal basis. One of the names that he suggests for this federal state is the united states of Europe. So we have been right all along to warn that we were headed for a united states of Europe. Now, Mr d'Estaing confirms that we were right all the way along.
What does this scheme involve? It involves a written constitution based on a charter of fundamental rights—which, as has been mentioned, was derided in 2001 by Keith Vaz as having no more significance than the Beano. This charter of fundamental rights, which is to become the written constitution, purports to grant rights which we already have without any charter. However, the charter may well put those rights at risk and lead to their withdrawal. If something can be included in a charter, it can be excluded from the charter. Furthermore, it undermines our own flexible constitution. I do not know what on earth will happen to our own constitution. It would be interesting to have the Minister's views on that.
The scheme is also to give us dual citizenship. Does that mean that we have two loyalties—one to the Queen and one to his presidency? Just exactly what does "dual citizenship" mean, and which loyalty will take precedence? We ought to have answers to these questions. Article 8 refers to the loyal co-operation of member states vis-à-vis the Union. Is that to override loyalty to their nation and those in their nation who elected them? There are some very serious questions to be answered.
This united states of Europe is to be given a legal personality and the right to sign treaties without ratification. Currently, Parliament has to ratify all treaties. Under the proposals, however, it will not be necessary to ratify treaties made on our behalf by the European Union or whatever it is going to be called. The Union will also represent nations internationally by having its own diplomatic representatives and claiming seats on international bodies. If it has its own legal personality, then the European Union will have the status of a state and will be internationally recognised as one. That is bound to diminish the status and role of the nation states within it. Coupled with that, and to facilitate the creation of a single European state, the second and third pillars are to be collapsed into a single entity. Make no mistake about it: that is what it says in Giscard d'Estaing's scheme.
The Prime Minister is suggesting the reduction of veto power, which is bound to lead eventually to decisions on foreign and defence policy being made by

953
QMV, as is currently happening in the case of justice and home affairs and policing. A further proposal is to end the system of the rotating presidency of the European Council and to replace it with a president elected every five years by the Council itself. This president would speak and act for the Union and—in the words of at least one British Minister—would be a strong and authoritative voice speaking for the Union. That sounds good. However, it can only diminish the voice and the role of national leaders. I believe that that is exactly what is intended by the superstate builders.
The Union's finance is also under review. According to the Giscard draft, the Union budget is to be fully financed by its own resources. That might not be considered to be anything other than the present position, except, of course, that our dear friend the President of the Commission, Signor Prodi, and others, are calling for the European Union to have power to levy taxes, direct and indirect.
Now, of course, as we have already heard, there is the sop of subsidiarity. How I distrust that word. I remember the Maastricht Treaty when John Major said, "We have subsidiarity. We have won it, game, set and match". What has happened since? Far from there being any subsidiarity and far from any competences being returned to the nation states, the competences ceded to the centre have grown and grown and grown every single year. So when I hear the word "subsidiarity" I become very suspicious indeed. Make no mistake, there will not be any subsidiarity and no ceding of powers back to the nation states.
At the time of the Nice Treaty signing our own government pooh-poohed the idea that any of these proposals were serious, yet they have now embraced them all. Blair's speech in Cardiff on 28th November, which has been referred to on several occasions this afternoon, was about Europe and support for continued and increased integration. I was struck by a sentence in that speech which I quote,
"And with each new direction taken, Britain has tended to say this far and no further. Then on the next development we say the same. And so on".
That is what worries many of us. There seems to be no end to integration. And if that is so, Britain will be integrated out of existence. That must be so, if there is no end to it. So, we are entitled to ask Mr Blair, who says that he is "a British patriot", if he has a sticking point to integration and, if he has, where and what it is.
In that Cardiff speech Mr Blair also repeated his Warsaw dictum that he wants Europe to be a superpower and not a superstate. But you cannot be a superpower without being a superstate. Mr Blair must know that you cannot be a superpower without the means, and the means can only be through a superstate. The Giscard draft and other proposals before the convention are further steps towards the creation of that superstate. I believe that the people of this country simply do not want that.
954
Finally, what we really need in this country is not a convention on the future of Europe. We need a convention in which all the people are involved. We need a convention on the future of Britain. That is what the people of this country want.
7.43 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to peer into the future of Europe. I believe that the issues we are discussing today affect not only those of us who live and work in Europe but the rest of the world as well. I think in particular of those parts of the world where there is a strong European heritage, such as the Americas. But any developments in, and evolution of, the European Union are of interest in all those regions where countries are attempting to link their needs, economies and destinies and follow the model of the European Union in doing so.
It has been said that this is really the first time in our history when the whole scope, purpose and direction of the European Union are subject to debate not just in your Lordships' House but also in the many communities, organisations and groups who recognise that the drawing up of a convention or treaty on the future of Europe presents an opportunity for change, improvement, simplification and clarification.
As many of your Lordships know, I served as a member of the European Parliament after the first direct elections in 1979. Subsequently as a Minister I represented my department at the appropriate Council of Ministers meetings. Those meetings took place behind closed doors. I confess that the opportunity for full and frank discussion that that system allowed enabled business to be dispatched more effectively and speedily than might otherwise have been the case if the meetings had been conducted under the public gaze. I hope that the greater openness in Council, to which the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, referred, will not make procedures more cumbersome and debate more restricted. To complete my declaration of interests, I am currently a member of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe.
I wish to concentrate my remarks on cultural heritage issues and in particular on the role of religion. But I cannot resist picking up briefly some other issues which have been raised in the course of the debate. First and foremost, the role of the European Union in trade is incontrovertible. But if it is to play a leading role in the development of a global trade policy, it roust get its own house in order. I refer, of course, to the common agricultural policy but there are other examples.
Secondly, I refer to social policy. In my view any treaty which will have a long-term impact on the people of Europe should include broad social objectives. The danger lies in attempting to go into too much policy detail. I hope that that will be resisted. The principle of subsidiarity has been developed by various speakers and is, I believe, in great need of better application. I was interested in the novel suggestion to use the principle of subsidiarity in the way suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Owen. But I

955
believe that it should be applied not only as between national authorities and the European Union but also as between the European Union and other international organisations. I refer particularly to the conflict that sometimes arises between the work of the European Union and the Council of Europe. But, for example, the OECD, the WTO and, indeed, the United Nations are all institutions with which there is a risk of overlap and duplication.
In the application of the rule of subsidiarity—that is, that power should be devolved to the level closest to the citizen—the example of the relationship between the European Union and the Council of Europe is an important one. The Council of Europe now has some 44 member states from Portugal to Azerbaijan and from Iceland in the north to Turkey in the south. All European Union members and, indeed, the current applicants for membership, are also members of the Council of Europe. Historically, the Council of Europe has been the champion and the guardian of human rights, cultural heritage and educational issues. There is no need, therefore, for the European Union to take over that role. I trust that any underlining of the importance of those matters in the convention will not impinge on the work already being carried out by the Council of Europe.
That leads me to my main theme: the importance of culture and heritage; the recognition of its diversity and the need for us all to respect and understand not only our own national inheritance but also the inheritance of others, even and perhaps especially if that leads to a different approach or way of doing things.
I know that the European Union has committed itself to working towards the development of an open and diverse cultural area shared by the peoples of Europe in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity and the promotion of a legal framework favouring cultural activities and guaranteeing respect for cultural diversity. That is excellent, provided that this commitment operates, in effect, as a cross-curricular theme.
It has been suggested, according to the most recent progress reports from our national Parliament representative, that all budgets devoted to the promotion of European culture and heritage should be transferred to the Council of Europe. I agree with that.
One particular aspect of our cultural heritage is of great concern to many people, and has already been introduced as a theme in this debate by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans. I refer to the place and role of the Churches in religious communities. If a future constitutional treaty, designed to guide the European Union through the next decades, made no reference to religion, Churches or religious communities, it would create a vacuum, given their real significance to society as a whole, to the values and identities on which society is based and to the Union's relationship to its citizens.
956
It is true that there is reference to religion in some treaty provisions, annex protocols and declarations and in secondary legislation, in areas such as non-discrimination, labour law, co-operation and development, to name but a few. I would hope to see those references reinforced in the future convention on the basis of a cross-curricular theme. We might go even further—and again, I rely on the excellent exposition made by the right reverend Prelate. Perhaps it would be possible to introduce into the preamble to the convention an explicit reference to God and to the religious heritage of Europe as essential elements of European identity and a reference point for many citizens of the European Union.
In order to avoid such a reference being exclusive, I suggest that the example of the Polish constitution could be followed. As I understand it, that document refers:
"both to those who believe in God as the source of truth, justice, goodness and beauty as well as to those not sharing such faith but respecting those universal values".
That is a very neat solution to the proposition that I am making.
I hope that what I have said gives the noble Lord. Lord Tomlinson, some food for thought, although I am one of those who was able to have a word with him on the subject—in the corridor, I hasten to add, not in the Bishops' room. I hope that it will also serve to put some meat on the bones of the skeleton draft treaty to which the Minister referred.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, at the outset I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart. In my time in the Foreign Office as a Minister, I had responsibilities for the European Community. I remember vividly the role played by the late Lord Jenkins of Hillhead and the imagination, drive and spirit that he brought to it. Not to have him participate in a debate on Europe leaves a huge gap in our deliberations.
I should also like to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Tomlinson, with whom I work closely in the Council of Europe, to the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, and to my noble friend Lord Grenfell for all that they have done to make this debate necessary and important. We should not take for granted the amount of work that people such as my noble friend Lord Tomlinson are putting into this matter. As a close friend, I know how many hours, days and weeks he is giving of his own time, on our behalf, to ensure that the outcome of the convention is along the right lines.
I sometimes wonder whether people are imaginative and brave enough in these exercises. One big issue that I should have liked to see faced is the composition of the European Parliament. I believe that what we have learned by looking at it objectively over the years is that we have ended up with a mess. We have a European Parliament that is, inevitably, remote from the people. When elections take place, they are seldom about European issues. They serve as a litmus test for

957
the popularity of the government of the day. The number of people voting is disturbingly small. Our national parliaments have almost a vested interest in demonstrating their identity and separateness from all that is happening in Europe. I wish that we could revisit the issue of whether it would have been better to have an indirectly elected European Parliament in which there was an automatic and integrated link between politicians nearer to their communities in nation states and politicians working at the issues at the European level.
We live in a time of managerialism. There is always a danger that in our managerial preoccupations we forget what we are managing for. History would judge us harshly if it appeared that we, as politicians, became caught up in constitutional preoccupations before we spelt out clearly enough to the people of our country why the constitution was necessary and why the developments were essential. What are the challenges that face us that make Europe and European institutions so vital?
I wish to dwell on one aspect. It seems to me that the starting point in relevant politics is the recognition of total global interdependence. That is where I profoundly differ from my very good personal friend, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. To use the language that he used is to mislead the public about the reality of the world in which we live. Let me spell it out: the economy, the environment, health, trade—not one of those issues can any longer be satisfactorily solved on behalf of our people in the national context alone. They all demand international co-operation and an interdependent approach. That is where the institutions of Europe become important.
There is a paradox here, however. If one accepts that argument, the European Union itself is not sufficient. My noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal, in her interesting introduction, dwelt on migration and immigration. There is no way that we will solve those problems within the European Union itself; we have to get it right with the countries around the European Union.
What worries me in that context is that in expanding the Union, which I favour, there is a danger that the dividing line between those who are part of the European Community and those who are outside it becomes more, not less, significant. I hope that the convention's work will deal with how we can ensure that the wider Europe has an opportunity, all the time, to relate and become involved in relevant European policies when they make sense and are essential. I am not sure that that is a priority, from what I see of our immediate preoccupations.
I refer only to one country in that regard, because it would be remiss of me to make this observation without mentioning it. The role of Russia is central to the European Union. If we are to have a sound and stable world, we must enable Russia to become a full, positive and responsible part of the management of world affairs. If we take the developments in the European Union seriously, we must consider how we can make it more possible for Russia to co-operate, rather than introducing greater structural difficulties.
958
It is not only to Europe that one must refer in the context of interdependency. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, with whom I work closely in the Council of Europe, has made that point well. We must consider not only the wider Europe but the wider international community. On that issue, we come to how the convention's work examines how the strengthened European Union will relate to, as one example, the international financial institutions and, as another, the UN system as a whole.
One of the most crucial areas of interdependence is security. As we have now all come to terms with the appalling threat of international terrorism with which we live, security is more powerfully important than ever. We have recognised that we cannot talk about a common foreign policy in the European Union if we are not also talking about a common security policy, because they are two sides of the same coin. My noble friend Lady Scotland said in her introduction that the matter had to be handled with an intergovernmental approach. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, made the same points.
If the development of policy on the subject were to become intergovernmental within the European Union, I would be concerned as to where effective parliamentary scrutiny took place. We would not simply be scrutinising an aggregate of several individual parliaments' approaches to a particular challenge, threat or problem that might be confronting us, but the policy evolving between the governments. Who would scrutinise that development in a common foreign and security policy, and where?
Most of us would agree that the story of the Western European Union parliamentary assembly does not grip noble Lords immediately with a sense of irresistible excitement and relevance, and that may sadly be true. On the other hand, theoretically it was a body of people with the job of scrutinising a common approach to defence on a European basis. Where will such scrutiny take place?
That brings us hack to my earlier point on a wider Europe. One thing very much to the credit of the Western European Union and its parliamentary assembly was that it put great emphasis on ensuring that European states from outside the WEU were present at and participated in its debate. Therefore, there was recognition of a need for a wider base for integration on international security. If one were to have that wider approach, one could not simply limit discussions and evaluations to the members of the WEU, as there would have to be a wider forum of concern. Where is that subject examined and taken seriously in the convention as it goes about its work?
The subject quickly takes us again to the United Nations and the Security Council. We need some clear indications fairly rapidly about the thinking of our Government on the issue. Is there to be a permanent seat for the European Union? What does that mean for the permanent seats of the United Kingdom and France? We cannot just leave that matter to resolve itself. We need clear analysis about it, and we need to face up to the issues involved.

959
I make two points in conclusion. In this age of interdependence and in view of the threat of global terrorism and the rest—I referred to those issues—we are all preoccupied with debates about the importance of the international rule of law. We must take seriously a point that has emerged in the context of the Council of Europe about the European conventions. If we tried to introduce new commitments and conventions that were limited to the European Union, that would be a retrograde step if it undermined the battle to win hearts and minds, in terms of commitment to the conventions, in the global community and the wider European community as a whole. We must consider that seriously. Building the European Union and its culture must not be done at the expense of weakening the global and wider European commitment to the same principles.
I am absolutely certain that the way in which history and public opinion judge the interesting work being done by the convention will involve not simply the quality of the design for the constitution, which is immensely important, but also how far what is being done meets the challenges that everyone knows are there. How relevant will the institution be to the real issues facing humanity? In that regard, we need more leadership rather than simply discussing who will chair this, who will be president of that, and how we should elect the leader for this or that task. For what purpose are we doing all of that? Unless we can capture the public imagination in that regard, we will not have much public identification with what we are trying to do constitutionally.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, having heard the opening remarks in the stirring speech of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I feel that I must now declare an interest: I am one of his representatives in the European Parliament. While I am not allowed to refer to him as a noble friend here, in a better part of England I can refer to him as my Cumbrian friend.
I very much welcome this debate because it is important. It is important because the convention will have a significant impact on the future of Europe and hence on the future of Britain. It will set the political terms of the agenda for the next IGC. At the outset of the process, I was not at all sure about that, but I am now. I say that not least because it is chaired by M Giscard. I do not believe that M Giscard wants his political career to end in bathos. He is, I believe, fully aware that he is one of the successors of Louis XIV.
In my very small political experience, one of the greatest problems about European Union politics is that there is a general unwillingness to differentiate between policy and how policy is made. That does not really cut across the domestic political agenda in the same way. After all, few people argue for the abolition of Westminster because from time to time it produces conclusions with which they are unhappy; nor do they rubbish its decisions because of the way that it is put together or the way that it works. In the case of
960
Europe, that distinction appears to get lost. I believe that when we debate the convention we should keep that in mind. After all, while much of what the convention does concerns policy, most of my remarks will not concentrate on that; most of them will relate to process. That, of course, is not to say that I in any way undermine or wish to denigrate the importance of the policy aspect of what is involved.
Equally in this context, words are a problem. For example, as everyone involved in this field knows, the word "federalism" means one thing to an audience of German Länder and something different to readers of the Daily Mail, and difficulties arise if both groups happen to be in the same audience at the same time. But it is absolutely clear that Europe needs a constitutional framework, which could be described as a "constitution" if that is how one wished to express it. It may come as a slight surprise to noble Lords to hear a hereditary Conservative Peer claim as an authority a leader of the Chinese communist party. However, I believe that Chairman Deng Xiaoping got it right when he said:
"It doesn't matter whether the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice".
In my view, basically the present structure of the treaties, which, after all, are the constitutional framework of the European Union, are disgraceful. One needs to have a law degree or something equivalent to be able to find one's way around. If one wishes to bring Europe to the people—whatever exactly that might mean—one can do no better than to start there. In addition, I strongly believe that we need to come to some kind of settlement of the state of permanent constitutional revolution that seems to exist at present in European politics.
While the report is excellent, there is one respect in which I do not believe that it is quite right—that is, in paragraph 4, which states:
"The establishment of the Convention is a deliberate move to win back public confidence, and reflects the realisation that the European public must be brought onboard for further widening and deepening of the Union to be successful".
I consider the convention to be something different. I believe that it has been a successful manoeuvre by two parts of the political elite, who have been excluded from the process of determining political change in Europe—that is, the national parliaments and the European Parliament.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, that the problem in relation to Europe is not a lack of information. In my experience as an elected politician, which, for obvious reasons—at least, up until now—has been outside Westminster, I have found that there are plenty of calls for information to be provided about Europe. But when, for example, one organises a seminar about it, absolutely no one turns up. I believe that there is an important paradox at the heart of that. The British people do not much like the European Union and they do not much like the way that it takes decisions. However, they do like the kind of world that the Union and such decisions have helped to create.

961
It seems to me that if one considers the matter from a slightly different perspective, the convention is a concept which is far less alien to politicians in other member states than it is to those in this country. In fact, it is an evolutionary political development which has come into being to deal with the various parliaments' wish for greater involvement in the process of political change. It has now become part of the political system of Europe, even if it is not now part of its constitutional order.
I believe that the reason that it has acquired that position is partly because of pressure from parliamentarians and partly because of the personality and achievements of those who lead it. After all, I am an admirer of M Giscard, and even if one is not, one has to concede that he is a considerable figure. I do not know Signor Amato, but Mr Dehaene is clearly a substantial, heavyweight personality, as is Sir John Kerr, although perhaps less so in the physical sense.
Against such a background, it behoves us to take seriously what is going on. That is true whether one looks at the issue from a party, a parliamentary or a national perspective. If we engage effectively, we can do things; if we fail to do that, we shall simply not have any impact.
In turn, for anyone who is involved and working in a European context, it seems that it must follow that one must work within the networks and the systems that surround the European political process. For as long as we are part of Europe, we must work those systems in order to maximise our own effectiveness.
Contrary to what is sometimes supposed, I do not believe that the evolution of European political parties, which are far looser coalitions than the national counterparts of which they are made, is in itself a conspiracy to drive forward a centralised European political agenda. It is an entirely logical and rational response to the way that decisions are now being taken, and governments, parliaments and political parties must position themselves advantageously. Doing so is no guarantee of achieving what one wants, but I believe that splendid isolation is a near certain guarantor of failing to obtain it.
As far as my own party is concerned, it seems to me that we can either line up with other centre-Right parties of government and handle the differences between us, which on occasions can be significant—if we do that we are put in the loop as a party of government—or stand alone defiant and patriotic, shrilly proclaiming intellectual and ideological purity, which gets one nowhere.
In a world where for better or worse—I happen to think it is for worse—something like 50 per cent of our legislation owes its origin to Europe, it hardly seems to me to be a real or effective way of furthering our national interests to stand aside from what is going on. In the kind of world in which we now live it is simply not a credible approach to effective government, which is the ambition of mainstream political parties. What is more, I believe that that would be recognised by the public as not being a credible approach.
962
Equally, those of us in the British Parliament must engage with other national parliamentarians in securing what we seek and, indeed, I believe that we should aim to take a lead. Certainly, the idea of parliamentary involvement in scrutinising the application of the principle of subsidiarity is now fashionable in a way it was not when my noble friend Lord Kingsland led the United Kingdom Conservatives in the European Parliament and I was his Chief Whip and legal spokesman some 10 years ago and we tried unsuccessfully to promote variations on that idea.
Certainly, it seems to me that there is no doubt that greater parliamentary involvement in European Union affairs is called for. There is a good case for a greater inter-parliamentary component to the EU's modus operandi aligned with its intergovernmental and Community working methods.
I feel strongly that we must ensure that each parliament be allowed to find its own best way of doing much of the work, not least because to do so accords with the principle of subsidiarity, and not to do so would be in breach of it.
8.15 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, what I shall say could be regarded as the words of a Eurosceptic. However, I would claim that they are the words of a Europhiliac. I think I know quite a lot about Europe. I think I can tell your Lordships about the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which established the Ukraine Catholic church; and a little about the war of the Spanish succession. I think I can tell my noble friend Lord Inglewood what happened to Louis XIV at the battles of Ramilles, Oudenarde, Blenheim and Malplaquet. I think I can say to your Lordships that I love European history and European civilisation. After all, it is the fountain of all present world civilisations and methods of trading and justice, which is not a bad record.
I would also suggest that at the same time the United Kingdom in its various ways as a small offshore island has done quite well in that process. Interestingly, I was lucky enough and privileged enough to arrive in your Lordships' House just in time to vote for the accession treaties in 1971, which I did with enthusiasm. I have become disillusioned not with Europe but with the way that Europe functions. Funnily enough, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, summed it up brilliantly at the end of his speech. He started talking about Russia and saying, "Where do the borders of Europe end?" Russia is a European country. Therefore, surely if it fulfils the rules, it should be allowed to join the European Union. But that European Union then becomes something completely, utterly and totally different from what was originally perceived in Rome in 1959.
We have to deal with Europe as it should be. We cannot continue having 80 per cent of our laws turned out by Europe with no democratic overview. Equally, if we have a democratic overview which stretches from Riga to Faro and from Salonika to Scunthorpe, there will be chunks of that continent who say, "We do not

963
like that democratic decision because it has been taken by a lot of people over there with whom we have nothing in common". Surely, for the peace of Europe we have to start taking away from the central institutions in Europe the powers they have. We cannot go on legislating in detail.
It was said by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, that this arose because of the desire for France and Germany never again to go to war. I suggest that it arose not to stop France and Germany from again going to war but because they had already decided that playing soldiers on the continent was extraordinarily silly. Too many people got hurt.
It was not the idea of the European Union that stopped the concept of Louvois sacking the Palatinate or Von Witzleben's cuirassiers charging uphill at the guns at Mar-La-Tours or Frederick the Great's Brandenburg cavalry beating up the Austrian general at Leuthen. The European Union was a consequence of France and Germany not wanting to go to war. They had had enough.
I suggest to your Lordships that there are some things that the European Union does extremely well. I think that what the European Union did over trade when the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, was the Trade Commissioner was good. Its treaty negotiating at the World Trade Organisation was in the interests of free trade. After all, no one is going to get anything other than by the buying and selling of widgets and increasing wealth. That is the only way to do it. So that is a good thing.
However, there are things that the European Union does quite appallingly badly. The fisheries policy is nothing short of a disgrace. The Namibians and the Norwegians can run a fisheries policy. The Icelanders have got increasing cod stocks. There have been two debates in your Lordships' House showing that the European Union is totally incapable of running a fisheries policy. There is no hope of changing it. Everyone accepts the CAP is a complete disaster but no one can do anything about it. We must try to make sure that the European Union does what it does well much better and that it does much less. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, made the important point that the borders start merging into the distance. We do not want something tight and overregulated. We want something loose.
I suggest that the greatest example of foreign policy and co-operation in Europe was in about 1815 with Talleyrand, Metternich and Castlereagh. They produced between them the system which kept Europe more or less at peace until 1870 in a time of terrific change in the 19th century. That was a very great achievement.
However, if all this process is locked into detailed treaty-ridden pockets it will end in tears because there is no give in it. It will break. If there is no give in it, it will end in someone saying, "We are not going to do it". That will end in people being beastly and bloodshed. So, unless the European Union starts to
964
withdraw from people's lives and to give back to Parliament and the people the things they hold dear, it will end in tears.
I notice that the new treaty says that it is going to be very naughty to try and secede from the European Union. But I am infinitely pleased to know that if this Parliament were in its wisdom at one stage to say, "We will secede from the European Union", this Parliament has the power to do it, which no government can take away from it, because no government and no Parliament can bind its successor.
So my warnings about the treaty process founded by Louis XIV, Giscard d'Estaing—whatever the man's name is—is that it is going to go too close, to lock everyone in and it has the possibility to end in tears.
My argument is a philo-European argument, not an anti-European argument because I want people to be able to live in peace and concord, to buy and sell widgets to each other, to pass without let or hindrance, to be friends with each other and to be able to cooperate in the Councils of Europe in that way. That is the way forward for Europe, not this detailed continental idea of things all locked up into separate compartments.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, the Green Party, of which I am a member and the views of which I regard it as my duty to represent in this House, supports the original aim of European integration, as do As has been mentioned several times, that original aim was to ensure that there was never again an intra-European war. Whether that would have happened anyway, without the formation of the European Union, as I think that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, just suggested, I do not know. He may well be right about that, but nevertheless that was the objective of Schumann and Monnet, the founders of the European Union.
My party is pro-European in its hope that European nations will continue to be culturally interactive and co-operate with each other. That must happen. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, was a little unfair to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, when he suggested that what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said meant that he was unaware that countries must co-operate. Of course they must, but they do so rather better if they retain their individuality and base from which to start.
Those are the good things about the European Union that we have supported, but we are also a devolutionary and democratic party. We do not think that the way in which the European Union is operated at present, and still less the way in which it appears to be planned to operate in future, is either democratic or seriously devolutionary. We are clear that that is the way in which this country must develop: we must be devolutionary and stay democratic.
Those reservations have led me to the belief that Britain should leave the European Union and pursue our belief in Europeanism through the Council of Europe, on which I, too, have served, for which I have the highest regard and which I think is an admirable

965
institution in both theory and practice. I believe that we must reach that view; I believe that my party will realise that that is the way forward; I hope that the Conservatives will be pushed back into that position sooner or later; and I think that Britain will.
As has been said so often today, the people of Britain do not like the European Union, its effects or what it does. As was said just now, they may like the kind of world that Europe has helped to produce, but I am not certain of that. I am far from clear that the European Union has improved anything during the past 30 years. It may have done, but there is no proof of that. My party has not yet bitten that bullet and come out against membership but, when the chips are down, we, the Conservative Party and plenty of others—including, ultimately, the people of this country—will arrive at that solution.
In a world increasingly run by corporations, this is not the time to abandon the rights and liberties of particular nations, especially when we see how the American empire appears to be ruled by the oil industry. We must fight the rule of corporations, which is thoroughly wrong and a real demonstration of the choice between God and Caesar—or, rather, Mammon, because the corporations speak for Mammon. As a nation, we are not interested in Mammon. In our time, we have been rich, and, compared to the rest of the world, we are very rich. However, although Britons tend to run a mile at the word "culture", it is, nevertheless, the culture of our country that we most prize. If we were to ask people why they liked living in England, that is one of the things that they would say.
Like so many people, including the noble Earl who has just spoken, I am not anti-European. Our ancestors were not anti-European when they resisted Napoleon. Churchill was not anti-European when he resisted Hitler. The cases are different, I agree. There is no question now of European unity being created by force. Those attempts were based on force, but this one is not. However, the results will be the same.
One of the results of the previous attempts would have been what is now being sought—the abolition of the nation state. It will be the end of our national individuality and our legal system, which is incompatible with that of the rest of Europe and is unique. That system may not be perfect, but it should not just be jettisoned. The point has been made by various speakers that what is best in our tradition is the general evolution of our constitution and our national character. That is how things happen in this country, and it is not to be cribbed, cabined and confined into the hutches of a restrictive and, ultimately, sterile constitution.
I have always thought of myself as an internationalist. I still do. As I said, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, was wrong to accuse some of us of not being internationalists just because we are also nationalists. The time will shortly come when we must decide whether we want the British nation to continue as an effective entity with its own ethos. I hope and
966
believe that we will choose that it should. If it is to do so, we must oppose the plans for a new constitution for a united Europe.
8.33 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, on introducing the debate, which is linked to the recent report by the House's Select Committee on the European Union and to the Convention on the Future of Europe, which reports later this year.
What is the purpose of a European Union of any size and at any time? How should it be structured accordingly? I shall refer to three separate, yet related, forms of security and will claim that those forms and their interaction are what planning theory and practice should seek to achieve.
First, there is defence security and the maintenance of peace in Europe and, from there, assistance to world peace. Secondly, there is political and economic delivery towards and within the European Union's nation states. Thirdly—not least—there is the confidence and well-being of families and communities throughout European Union member states. No doubt, the common factor among the three securities is economic stability.
By 2000, a dramatic change had occurred in European defence security. Already, by 1990, the Warsaw Pact had replaced the dogmas of Soviet communism with the aspiration of economic stability, human rights and democracy. Ten years later the former Yugoslavia embraces the same objectives while, in its case, rejecting the twin evils of national hostility and ethnic cleansing.
While still no less of a dramatic change and contrast, it may not be too surprising that an outcome like this should follow on from the implementation of a good defence policy, if there had been one, as the fruits from its labour. However, what may be less obvious is that economic and social development levels themselves should ever form part of the means, as well as the outcome of any defence policy; let alone that they should have proved already to be the key instruments within a recent, effective European defence strategy.
Yet, exactly that did prove to be the case between 1948 and 1989 in terms of the Cold War. The 1949 NATO Alliance could not have been formed had it not been preceded by the economic disbursement of Marshall aid in 1948.
The Cold War would not have ended as it did in the 1980s had the arms race not come to exert an unacceptable level of pressure on the economies of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact states. Nevertheless, until 1989, and in spite of promising signs to the contrary, many of us still believed that Soviet communism would remain entrenched for a long time. It did not, and for that a huge debt is owed to the forging of the North Atlantic alliance in the first place, and to the balance achieved by its membership in terms of deterrence, diplomacy and economic stability.

967
What guidance therefore can be offered by the performance of NATO from 1949 to 2000? The two different periods to be looked at should be the Cold War until 1989 and the conflict within the former Yugoslavia between 1991 and 1999. Thus, how can the successes within the first period, together with the mistakes made within the second, help us to forge a sound European defence policy now?
NATO's strategy during the Cold War may have been both unusual and successful in three respects. First, unlike the League of Nations between the World Wars, it demonstrates how human rights can be backed up by force. Secondly, and unlike most other powers throughout history, the building up of arms for peace and containment rather than for war and aggression. And thirdly, as indicated, the agenda or philosophy shared by NATO member states: that democracy and human rights are best preserved and advanced through economic stability.
NATO's mistakes during the conflict within the former Yugoslavia and the divisions within western defence security to which these mistakes corresponded, are often agreed to be a product of successful management during the Cold War. For 40 years, NATO's focus had been the containment of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact states, which formed its satellites. The containment of regional instability had thus not been a priority or even a necessity. As a result, NATO states distributed over the European Union, and including the United States, were unused to confronting regional instability in the 1990s, and were divided over and unsure of the best way to do so with regard to the former Yugoslavia.
With hindsight, many of us believe that the catastrophe could have been avoided if at the outset the prescription of July 1991 of the European Union Dutch presidency had been implemented. That prescription was for two expedients. First, it was for firm and decisive action at the outset by United Nations and NATO troops to stop the fighting between Serbs and Croats. And secondly, for those troops to remain to enable the European Union to preside over an orderly secession of states from the former Yugoslavia.
Does the Minister agree that the prescription for NATO and Europe may be fairly clear now? NATO membership should always include those states which belong to the European Union. As the Cold War proves, NATO's capacity should always be fully maintained to achieve deterrence. As the former Yugoslavia teaches, it should act quickly and decisively to deflect and deter crises of all kinds in their early stages and before they take hold.
My second theme is the desired aim of consistent political and economic delivery within the larger European Union. No doubt a useful background to that is offered by the concept of subsidiarity. If that concept emphasises what nation states should deal with on their own, so that the European Union in other respects can provide added value, it also implies a corollary. This is that the areas where the European
968
Union does affect member states can even assist as a parallel added value in an improved form of delivery by national governments and parliaments over their own affairs.
In this context, I should like to mention three aspects. First, the new role of the national parliaments as this might come to be devised within the wider European Union. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, and the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, reported progress in this endeavour. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, emphasised the importance that the contributions of national parliamentarians should be ex ante.
Secondly, there is the related case, apart from and in addition to that for a council of national parliamentarians, for much improved parliamentary scrutiny by national parliaments of their own governments' European policies. Thirdly, and as indicated, there is the healthy prospect that if national parliaments really do start to scrutinise European policies and proposed legislation properly, through habit and practice they will also become much better at checking and influencing their own governments and executives over their own national affairs. Does the Minister agree that these aspects can and should now be connected together? If so, what steps will the Government take to consolidate further the role of national parliaments over proposed European legislation? How do they propose to encourage among European Union states much more national parliamentary scrutiny over their own governments' European and national policies in order to assist an improved level of European democracy?
The third theme is confidence and well-being affecting families and communities throughout European member states. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans warned against a narrowly focused attention to material delivery alone. And there is a risk that within the new wider European Union, political and economic delivery will improve while the confidence of families and communities may not do so commensurately. Yet this inconsistency, if it should obtain, may not so much reveal an obsession with material resources; rather more, perhaps, it will reflect an ineptitude in handling them. Not least is that so since, as already indicated, it is the professed conviction of all our states that human rights and well-being are best preserved and advanced through economic stability in the first place. Not least does the challenge from communities come from problems of young people and from those of them who, as a result of difficulties at home and with school learning, require to be deterred, guided and inspired into constructive purpose and away from crime.
Does the Minister accept that those and related matters are best addressed through the attainment of much improved practice and by the examples set to each other by different European Union states? If so, through corporate responsibility, partnership and initiative within both the public and private sectors, what planning and action will the Government embark upon to set our own standards for the benefit of others within a wider European Union? In another

969
context, the Government should be congratulated on the good example they have set through the ready response and welcome given to all those who will form part of the mobility of labour when the new states come in.
In summary, as we approach the wider European Union we should do so much more with thoughts of simple values than with those of administrative complexities. And when the wider European Union comes into being, it will be a triumph for peace, for our history and for humanity.
8.43 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, this has been a useful, important and long overdue debate. I was sorry that my noble friend Lord Russell-Johnston was unable to take part in the debate. He was a little unwell today and wanted to ensure that he was better in time for the debate that he will lead tomorrow.
We have heard a range of opinions and I want to begin by taking issue with the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, on his knowledge of European history. He is not now in his place, but some of us are aware that like him we can trot out the battles that the British won during the war of the Spanish succession. I remember once attending a meeting of COSAC—that dreadful exercise of the conference of European scrutiny committees of national parliaments—in Versailles where in the Chambre de Batailles we were able to see a wonderful panorama of all the battles which the French won in European history, starting in, I believe, 549 and ending for some reason in 1813. Most of these were battles which the British, German, Spanish and Italian representatives did not know about. So we may believe that we are European but we all have our different perspectives on what we think European history is about.
In his new year message, as I understand it, the Prime Minister said that in the long run the convention on the European Union may prove to be much more important to the future of Britain than the decision on whether to go to war with Iraq. That is an important and weighty statement. If that is so, it is quite extraordinary that Her Majesty's Government have been so reluctant to encourage an informed public debate within Britain so far. The Government have shown the same level of enthusiasm for persuading the British public of the case for a simplified European constitution as they have shown for persuading them to join the euro—old patterns which, sadly, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, recur under both Conservative and Labour governments.
The Government start by saying that it is not terribly important—only a tidying up exercise. They then run scared of the Daily Mail, The Times and the Telegraph and slip into the kind of language that we have heard from Ministers in the past two months, that "We are winning the argument". The next stage is that they have to explain why they have not won the argument after all because the Franco-German paper has suggested a number of other things without the British Government attempting to conduct intelligent
970
discussions at different levels with our French. German and other partners. This leaves the British public, in the end, confused, suspicious and suspecting, yet again, a conspiracy hatched behind closed doors of the kind of which the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick, again reminded us.
It is now 10 months since the convention opened; six months since your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Union published its report; there has been no government publication of which I am aware. In spite of the demands that many of us have made on a number of occasions, there has been no Green Paper to set out the Government's approach and to focus the attention of the public and Parliament. The British Government have made a number of proposals in the convention—which, with some difficulty. Members of this House and another place have been able to obtain—and, oddly enough, they seem to have focused their small efforts on informing the Welsh. The Prime Minister gave a useful speech in Cardiff; the Secretary of State for Wales attends the convention and reports back occasionally to his constituents. But, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, reminded us, it is after all an English constitution and perhaps the English, the Scots and the Northern Irish would like to be a little better informed as well.
The convention is well over half-way through its proceedings and most working group reports have been published. It is time for the Government to be more active, both at home and in relation to other governments, at the highest level outside the convention as well as inside. It is a major failing of the Government that they have not spent more effort, first, in informing the British public and their own Parliament, and, secondly, in operating government to government with their partners in the European Union outside the convention to ensure that the ideas that we float are shared with other governments.
There have been two major British initiatives so far, neither of which seems fully thought through. The first was a proposal for a long-term president of the Council, which aroused fears among all the smaller states of a directoire of the big countries. The second was the idea of a greater role for national parliaments, an additional European chamber, which was floated by the Prime Minister without consulting any of those who had been to COSAC, without consulting Parliament at all and without a full explanation of how it would work in practice.
I remember the cynical remark of, I think, a German politician, that it was odd that the two Governments within the European Union which had the weakest national parliaments, those with the least accountability over their Executives—the British and the French—should be the ones that have put the most effort into saying that the role of national parliaments has to be strengthened in the European Union. It is of course remarkable and a shame that the Government, who have marked this past year by saying that the role of national parliaments has to be strengthened, have not attempted to engage either Chamber in the early stages of this convention.

971
I welcome the report of the Working Group on National Parliaments, which overlaps in its conclusions with the report of the European Union Committee of this House on scrutiny. Both of these require a response from Her Majesty's Government and a full debate. We need to discuss pre-scrutiny of the Council agenda, of the kind that some other national parliaments undertake. Some kind of Joint Committee of both Houses, or a Joint Committee consisting of the chairs of various committees and subcommittees in both Houses, to meet Ministers ahead of each Council would be worth experimenting with. We need more active committees in both Houses to report more rapidly—so they would need to be better staffed.
We need greater government respect for scrutiny reserves. When I was chair of Sub-Committee F of the European Union Committee, on two successive meetings of the Social Affairs Council, the scrutiny reserve was overridden by Ministers who said: "Yes, but we felt that it was very important to make this gesture at this particular time". The reference was to the major issues of the social dimension and on Article 13 anti-discrimination directives, which extend the capacities of EU law.
We also need to consider closer links between committees in this Parliament and committees of other parliaments, and whether we ought to work harder to involve our national Members of the European Parliament a little more closely in the work of the committees of this House and of the other place, as is done in a number of other parliaments.
The Government might also have considered putting forward their own proposals for the reform of COSAC—which has the potential to be a useful body even though, so far, the quality of the food provided has been rather higher than the quality of the debate.
Then we come to the question of the institutional triangle, raised by a number of speakers. Clearly, the Council presidency has to be modified in various ways. We could perhaps move towards each Council electing its president for a certain period—its own chairman. There needs to be simplification in terms of the numbers of Council meetings.
So far as concerns the European Parliament, I am very sorry that the move from Strasbourg to Brussels appears again to have dropped off the list. The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, shakes his head. I trust that the Government will be extremely firm on this matter. It seems to me that giving Strasbourg the Food Agency and any other agency that it wants would be worthwhile compensation for getting the European Parliament to the place where the European media, the European lobbies, the European Commission and the Council Secretariat are—a long overdue presentation.
I suggest that the weakest point of the triangle at present is the Commission. It is too weak. The prestige of the Commission has gone down. Attempts to reform it, led by Commissioner Kinnock, have faltered. I get the sense that within a number of national governments respect for the quality of the
972
Commission's work is continuing to decline. That is very worrying because we need an effective Commission. We need an effective body at the centre to make proposals, to consult and to make sure that implementation takes place.
The college of Commissioners is clearly too large and will get larger. I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, that we should have followed the French in proposing that we now make a jump to a much smaller Commission—which would be a much more effective Commission. I am very sorry that when, in a meeting of the European Union Committee of this House, some of us made that proposal to Peter Hain, he showed very little interest in taking it further.
As to the choice of the president of the Commission, the least that can be said is that the present process has not worked very well since 1985. The process through which various governments with British Prime Ministers in the lead black-balled the people whom they did not want—so that you ended up with someone whom no one particularly minded—has applied to both Delors' immediate successor and to the one after that. There is perhaps even some merit in Giscard d'Estaing's idea that a European congress which brought together jointly national parliaments and the European Parliament for this one purpose— namely, to elect a president of the Commission— might be one way forward.
On the simplification of the treaty, I teach European Institutions at the London School of Economics. It is an advanced course lasting a year, and our students struggle hard to understand the full complexity of the European Union, including the differently numbered articles of the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty establishing the European Community and the amendments of the Treaty of Amsterdam and the Treaty of Nice, et cetera. It is a minefield. A simplified treaty would be an immense benefit.
The biggest mistake that the Danes made after Maastricht was to decide that as part of their referendum process they would distribute copies of the treaty to all households. I remember the Belgian representative for that IGC, Phillipe De Schoutheete, saying afterwards that, if we had understood that the outcome of our negotiations would be read by the wider public, we would have understood it as an entirely different exercise. We need a simplified treaty.
I very much hope that the Conservatives will not get too hung up on the novelty of calling this a constitutional treaty. The Treaty of Rome was, after all, a constitutional treaty. For that matter, the UN Charter is a much weaker form of constitutional treaty. The British Constitution is a highly complex set of Acts, charters, declarations, et cetera, which we are still doing our best to simplify and tidy up a little. I welcome the remark that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, quoted from Michael Ancram:
"We want Europe to work better".
If that is the Conservatives' approach, we are very happy with it.

973
The most important area in which we need Europe to work better is foreign policy. I agree strongly with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, said on the matter. Twelve years after the end of the Cold War, with 25 member states in the European Union, more likely to follow within the next 10 to 15 years, and a more difficult and distant relationship with the United States—for whom the European region is no longer the main foreign policy priority—we need a Europe that can live up to its broader international responsibilities.
The current half-built institutions we have for common foreign policy are not good enough. The other week, someone referred to "the High Representative for the lowest common denominator". That is part of the problem. Solana dashes around immensely energetically, but what can be do in the end? The current division between the Commission and the Council secretariat is untidy and inefficient. There is slow progress, originally on British initiative, towards a European security and defence policy. That must remain intergovernmental, but at least we can move, as some noble Lords said, towards modified unanimity. Of course, we need legal personality, further integration of missions abroad and a larger common budget.
On justice and home affairs, I disagree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Owen. We need to integrate an area that concerns civil liberties and law into the structures that have proper oversight. We need the European Court of Justice to come in also. On Iraq, at present, we are suffering from a situation whereby in Guantanamo Bay and allegedly in Diego Garcia, as some of us will discuss tomorrow, actions are taking place on prisoners of war that are said to fall outside both domestic and international law. That is unacceptable. Actions that must now be taken jointly by police forces, intelligence services and Customs services in Europe must be subject to law at European level.
A European Union of 25 will be a major player in the world and needs to be a major contributor to world order and world prosperity. For that it needs institutions strong enough to manage its international responsibilities. It needs to build mutual confidence in the implementation of common policies and standards by member states. And it needs to be made more comprehensible to its citizens and more accountable to political representatives elected by those citizens.
There is much still to be done. This time it needs to be done well—better than at Nice and at Amsterdam. We need a constitutional settlement. I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Owen, that we should not rush it. If it takes longer than 2003, we do not need to rush to a new Treaty of Rome. Above all, we need to carry national parliaments and national publics with us this time.
9 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I shall not make the customary remarks about the excellence of today's debate. It must be self-evident. Such debates show
974
your Lordships' House at its finest. That applies especially to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and to the very good and detailed European Union Committee reports. Similarly, I shall not trouble your Lordships with too many details of the background to the debate, to which so many have alluded so eloquently.
I fully support my noble friend Lord Howell in many of his worries about much of the detail of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, on the convention, especially concerning the new charter of fundamental rights, the legal personality and, most importantly, the discussion about losing our seat and France's on the UN Security Council in favour of a European Union seat. Is this true? It seems difficult to believe. Will the Minister clarify that? These were areas of concern for many of your Lordships. The contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, was particularly interesting.
I shall comment on just three areas mentioned by many noble Lords that feature prominently in the convention report. The convention's scope is very wide, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, so I shall concentrate on those three points: first, as the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Beaumont, mentioned, the need to address the growing public disenchantment with the European Union, not only in the United Kingdom; secondly, the ongoing debate about the balance of power between the European Union institutions; and, thirdly, a few of the institutional reforms needed to cope with enlargement.
As we await the first draft this month, it is said that we should expect a great work. Former President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, who chairs the convention with the very able and distinguished former ambassador, Sir John Kerr, compares its work to the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. Perhaps that is the result of having just read David McCullough's very good book on John Adams. Another decisive moment may be when President Chirac and Mr Schröder produce their Franco-German paper this month, a s we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Watson.
Nearly a year has passed since the convention started to meet. The whole House agrees that it will be of immense importance to this country and to the continent's future, as emphasised strongly by my noble friend Lord Inglewood and by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. However, from all the latest reports, the convention is taking the path of yet further arrogation of powers to the European centre and away from the member states. Was this really the reason for which it was set up?
One of the points brought out clearly in the Select Committee's very good and comprehensive report is the need to address,
"the public disenchantment with an ever more powerful, yet opaque European Union".
Without the political will, the European Union will stagnate once again, as it did for many years until the Single European Act, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, mentioned. Many more noble Lords have emphasised that this is a time of

975
unique opportunity for the European Union. With the future enlargement of the European Union, we are forced to debate and will have to decide on many changes that are essential if we want it to succeed.
I remember well the final foreign affairs meeting in the European Parliament in 1994 when I served as a Member. We discussed for many hours whether we should bring in the institutional changes essential for the European Union before the accession of Austria, Finland, and Sweden or whether we should leave it until later. One of the few important responsibilities of the European Parliament is the final decision on the admittance of new member states—that is to say, enlargement. There were strong and persuasive arguments on both sides. Morally, like now, it was agreed that the three countries should join first. Alas, the institutional changes are still being discussed and have yet to be finalised. Initially, we were led to believe that this was what the convention was meant to be about; not about acquiring still further and further powers. With all the reports that we read, it is difficult to follow the argument put by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, that this is not the case.
Today an ever-expanding European Union is looking, rightly, to the future, not the past. We need a European Union that concentrates on its core tasks— building peace, prosperity, and stability in Europe. But a great deal of the European debate seems to centre on various people vying for presidencies. Even President Giscard d'Estaing was reputed to be unhappy about the constant competing of the intergovernmental view to those of the Commission, saying,
"If we reduce the EU system to one or another of the two visions, the Convention will be blocked, but also Europe will be blocked".
As I can remember, it is the same old argument between the intergovernmental and the institutional powers; that is to say, the Commission. We have had much the same debate through the centuries here in Britain of where should lie the balance of power between government and Parliament.
Finally, there are many institutional changes that will have to be made as the EU has more member states—further subsidiarity, further involvement of national parliaments, and further consideration of changes in the QMV system. One important change will be the present system of rotating Council presidencies. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, stressed, the current system will not work.
However, we oppose the proposal for an individual president elected by his peers for five years. We support team presidencies, or chairman of the Council, with perhaps one large member state working with two small ones for two years. As my right honourable friend Mr Michael Ancram said in another place:
"Such a reform would have many benefits. It would provide longer-range Council planning, it would be a model for international co-operation and, above all, it would not be a threat to the position of the smaller member states of the EU".
976
It is typical of this Government's muddled approach to Europe that the Prime Minister was unable to face up to this difficulty. He wills the end without willing the means. It is widely recognised that the Council of the European Union needs reform if it is to work after enlargement. However, as my noble friend Lord Howell said earlier, instead of concentrating on real reforms this Government have proposed a grandiose post of permanent President of Council, thus alienating our smaller partners.
It is a great disappointment that while the Government talk about a Europe of nation states, they do not mean it. Last year the Prime Minister proposed a "unified European foreign policy". How can that be reconciled with a Europe of sovereign nation states? It cannot. As the noble Lord, Lord Owen, asked, will the Government enter into a single treaty? Such a policy would either mean that the European Union's foreign policy was reduced to the level of the lowest common denominator or involve the imposition of some countries' foreign policy over others—a thoroughly undesirable situation.
Can the Minister help us on what the convention means by the statement that there may no longer be a common foreign policy but, more worryingly, a single foreign policy? Iraq is a good example in which there are marked differences of view. How will Article 53 from the defence working group work out in that regard?
If the European Union cannot deliver prosperity, it is failing in one of its main tasks. Yet, although unemployment continues to increase in the European Union, the single market remains incomplete and enlargement has not yet even begun to be bedded down, the Government want the European Union to take on still more powers. This side of the House wants a Europe of sovereign nation states that engages with the peoples of Europe to deliver what they want— peace, prosperity and stability.
I return to my first point. We hope that the Government will start to match their rhetoric with action and begin to build a Europe that delivers what its peoples want, even if that be for a start in pubs and homes as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. Are we to understand that the Government will support the referendum mentioned by my noble friend Lord Howell or refuse it? I very much support the views on asylum and immigration and Russia outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. We must look to Europe more widely for many of the answers rather than just look within the European Union.
I conclude with a reminder from the report. It states,
"that the Convention's conclusions, whatever form they take, are not binding and that the real decisions will be taken by the Governments at the IGC in 2004 in Berlin".
9.11 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, today's debate has been a welcome reconfirmation— not that any was needed—of the interest of this House in European matters in general, and in the discussions on the future of Europe in particular. I, too, am very

977
grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and his committee for their report and for the excellent work that they do. I am grateful to all your Lordships for the hard work that has so evidently gone into this debate.
I should like to start with some general remarks about the convention and by assuring the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that there is no question about the importance of the convention. The convention is an exceptional forum because it offers us a unique opportunity to debate fully the fundamental issues lacing the European Union. It is an opportunity to discuss openly how we can take the Union forward in a way that increases our collective prosperity and security and improves our quality of life. Against the backdrop of the expansion of NATO and the enlargement of the European Union, we have the sort of opportunity that arises only once in a generation— an opportunity to define the type of Europe that we and our partners want for our children and succeeding generations.
The work of the convention provides for broader discussion and consultation than has ever been possible before. As today's debate has shown, real discussion can reveal proposals that are radically different from one's own. I personally welcome the hugely interesting and very thought-provoking contribution from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for her very thoughtful remarks on this issue.
This House is a relatively homogeneous forum. Imagine the variety of ideas being generated within the convention, where members are far more heterogeneous in their background and aspirations. I also hear in mind the description by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. of progress on treaties that sometimes results in negotiations bearing a remarkable resemblance to trench warfare. I am therefore particularly pleased that we have such doughty fighters in your Lordships' House as our representatives on the convention. We have heard from two of our alternates, the noble Lords, Lord Maclennan of Rogart and Lord Tomlinson, as well as from my noble friend Lady Scotland, all of whom are fully engaged in the discussions. From what we have heard, it is evident that they very much relish the exchange of views that the convention offers. I thank them all for their hard work and application on these issues.
Some of your Lordships, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Howell, expressed concern at what they described almost as "decisions" which they deem the convention has taken or may have taken. However, the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, was clear in his excellent contribution that the work of the convention is not intended to take the place of the traditional discussions by heads of state and government in an intergovernmental conference. The convention's work "paves the way" for the IGC. The IGC is the place where final decisions will be taken, by leaders, by unanimity. The noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Owen, need comforting on that point. I assure them that nothing has yet been decided. But it is clear that
978
the convention is building consensus in many areas. So it is vital that we remain fully involved and try to do our best to help move the agenda forward in the convention.
In the mean time, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans that it is important that there is ample opportunity for further discussion at parliamentary level, in civil society, in our media, universities, schools and other institutions. Serious contributions to the debate on Europe are still very much lacking in the media, in the BBC and elsewhere. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will make the views that he put so cogently to your Lordships' House known to the chairman and the director-general of the BBC.
I turn to the timetable. We are now set to see the focus shift to look at institutional issues. The next plenary session, on 20th and 21st January, will discuss the functioning of the institutions and how best to ensure their effectiveness after enlargement. February will see discussions on the final working group report on social policy in Europe. There will also be plenary discussion about the role that regions or sub-member state authorities should play in the future of the Union.
Developing in parallel to this agenda, draft articles for the new EU constitutional treaty will be prepared and discussed. The drafts will be presented to the convention in tranches, with the first tranche to be discussed in February. We understand that all parts of the possible new treaty will be available by early May.
Heads of state and government confirmed at the Copenhagen European Council last month that the convention will present the results of its deliberations in time for the June 2003 European Council in Thessalonika. It was also confirmed at Copenhagen that the new member states will participate fully in the work of the next intergovernmental conference. The new treaty that will result from that IGC will be signed after the accession of the 10 new member states.
I stress to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who was so worried about the lack of discussion, that we have from June 2003 probably until May 2004 to develop that national debate which he, I and many other noble Lords wish to see. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Richmond, who urged Her Majesty's Government to adopt a practical role, that that is exactly the role that Her Majesty's Government are undertaking. My noble friend's description of negotiating her way through the turbulent waters of the working group on the charter is a perfect example of exactly that: of practicality and the importance of painstaking analysis, painstaking knowledge-gathering and, above all, patience.
Many noble Lords concentrated their remarks on the constitution. I refer to the noble Lords, Lord Howell of Guildford, Lord Tomlinson, Lord Watson, Lord Williamson, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon. The Government have made no secret of their support for an EU constitutional treaty. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, was right; we have a constitution of sorts already, but the current EU

979
treaties are so long, complicated, confusing and overlapping that maintaining the status quo simply is not plausible. There is a wide and growing consensus that a constitution would resolve a number of problems currently facing the Union. It would make clear what the EU is and define what the EU does; and it would specify how the EU acts. But, crucially, a constitutional treaty as we envisage it would be a relatively concise document that any interested reader would be able to understand.
But let me be clear and emphatic on this point. We are not advocating a constitution at any price. The key will be in the content; and that content will be discussed comprehensively in the convention over the coming weeks.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, had concerns on these issues. However, the Prime Minister has made it clear that we want a constitution to set out that the European Union is a union of nation states. This is not just the United Kingdom view. It is the view of the overwhelming majority of member state and accession country governments. There really is not a federalist plot, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, fears. There is not even a federalist love-child, as the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, imagines. There is no suggestion that an EU constitution is also a means to an EU superstate.
I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, had quoted a little more from the speech made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. I am sure that he has the full text. He will know as well as I do that my right honourable friend spoke about the importance of electorates feeling close to their own national governments, that they did not feel the same towards European institutions and that it was a settled view that there should not be a federal superstate.
Let us turn to the role of national parliaments, with which so many of your Lordships were rightly concerned. Some of your Lordships were less than impressed at the proposals for enhancing the role of national parliaments.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, has repeated the phrase, "We will not have a constitution at any price". That phrase has been stated without the price being defined. What is the price that the Minister will not pay?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I rather hoped that I had made it clear that we would not have a constitution based on a content with which we could not agree. The important issue is what the constitution says—not having a constitution. I hoped that I had made that clear.
I return to the role of national parliaments. I agree strongly with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, that strengthening the role of national parliaments has enjoyed widespread support in the convention. As the noble Lord says, that is heavily stressed in the first report of the European Union
980
Select Committee. It is absolutely right that national parliaments should be better able to hold national governments to account. National parliamentarians are the most visible, directly elected representatives of the people. By offering them a greater role in EU business, we hope to bring Europe closer to its citizens and to address the perception that the Union suffers from a lack of democratic legitimacy and accountability. Indeed, we aim to address the very issues to which my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal referred and which so concerned the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, my noble friend Lord Judd and the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings.
There have been many opportunities for parliamentary debate on developments and reforms of the European Union in the past few years. There have been the treaties of Amsterdam and Nice, committee reports, parliamentary questions and debates such as this. I was a little sad that the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, should be quite so gloomy about the lack of discussion. However, I was forcefully struck by the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Tomlinson about how little feedback he has had on his role in the convention. I must say that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, about organising seminars to which no one turns up, has a disheartening concordance with some of my own experiences.
The noble Lords, Lord Howell, Lord Williamson and Lord Stoddart, and my noble friend Lord Brennan were all very concerned about the charter. My noble friend Lady Scotland went to some lengths to cover that issue. She is an expert in the field, and I am sure your Lordships are as aware as I am of our great good fortune in having her considerable intellect and talent brought to bear on the issue.
I take issue with some of the more colourful passages in the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. This Government have always made it clear that the charter as proclaimed at Nice was not suitable for incorporation in the treaty. We have repeatedly explained that there are issues of legal certainty that would need to be resolved before we could consider that. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, said that he was very concerned on that point. As the Prime Minister said,
"we cannot support a form of treaty incorporation that would enlarge EU competence over national legislation".
That is clear, unequivocal and a direct quote from the Prime Minister's Cardiff speech.
By engaging positively in the discussion in the charter working group, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, along with other colleagues, has been able to make people elsewhere aware of our difficulties. As my right honourable friend suggested, that has not been an easy task, but some of those people have come to appreciate that they, too, would have some problems with a fully incorporated charter.

981
I again stress that we have not agreed to anything yet. I made it clear at the outset that those decisions would be for leaders at the intergovernmental conference. The charter now discussed is very different from the Nice version. It brings the charter back w the basis in treaty, in the ECHR and in common constitutional tradition. It links the commentary, which has hitherto been separated from the charter, and amplifies it, so that the charter as currently discussed would help to clarify the difference between legally enforceable rights and the more aspirational principles of the charter. I hope that that goes some way towards addressing some of the concerns of my noble friend Lord Brennan and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. I say to my noble friend that there are remedies. They are the same remedies as are available to citizens today. The charter seeks to make visible the rights that our citizens already have. It does not seek to change that.
My noble friend Lord Tomlinson and the noble Lords, Lord Lamont, Lord Williamson and Lord Willoughby de Broke, were also concerned about subsidiarity. Many of your Lordships were unconvinced about the appetite in Europe for the relevance or importance of subsidiarity. I acknowledge that the word is not particularly catchy or self-explanatory but the principle is an important one, for which, as my noble friend said, the UK has argued forcefully.
The recommendations of the subsidiarity working group in the convention should be recognised for what they are—they are not modest; they are groundbreaking. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, asked what the national powers might be. The Union has never had a mechanism that would allow national parliaments to make a political judgment on whether the EU's legislative proposals suggest action at the right level. The convention suggests exactly that. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, made a powerful case on that issue and for the backup that was needed. Some very interesting ideas were proposed by the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Owen. My noble friend and I are happy to debate this matter further. I say to all noble Lords— and to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, in particular—that we are happy to deal with such questions. We have made ourselves available on a number of occasions and shall do so again if there are still unresolved questions.
I turn to the question of the legal personality, which exercised many noble Lords. We have said that we could support a single legal personality for the EU in some circumstances. We could not accept a single legal personality if that jeopardised the national representations of member states in international bodies.
My noble friend Lord Judd asked about the United Nations. There is no question of the United Kingdom surrendering our seat on the UN Security Council. We support the reform of the Security Council to include five new permanent members, including Germany, Japan and India. I stress, in view of the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, and the noble
982
Baroness, Lady Rawlings, that we shall not relinquish our existing rights as a permanent member in so doing. The noble Lord, Lord Owen, was right: there are huge difficulties in this regard.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for having addressed the point about the United Nations. Will she clarify the Government's position on a seat for the European Union at the Security Council?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am not as yet in a position to do that. I said that we believe that Germany should be included and that there should be five new members—we specified three of them. I am aware of the difficulties raised by the noble Lord, Lord Owen, as are all my colleagues. Those difficulties are inherent in our discussions. I am grateful to him for putting his case so cogently.
Foreign and defence policy must remain intergovernmental. We would not countenance a shift away from the current intergovernmental approach to the EU's foreign and security policy or in the field of defence policy. Those areas must be made more effective and efficient, along with every other institution and policy area of the European Union. However, foreign policy and defence policy must remain in the hands of national governments cooperating freely. We have consistently made that clear in the convention. We believe that the discussions in the external actions working group went a long way towards clarifying how we can improve the effectiveness of CFSP and make EU external action more coherent.
However, we were less happy with the outcome on "double-hatting" the roles of the high representative and the external relations commissioner. We made clear our opposition from the start. Several member states and the current high representative share our concerns. No one has been able to answer our questions about accountability to two different masters. However, we welcome the fact that the "double-hatting" model in the group report is firmly Council-based and presented as one of four possible options.
Jean-Luc Dehaene made clear in the plenary discussions of the report on 20th December that CFSP would remain intergovernmental. The defence working group's report has the potential to make a real difference to European security and defence policy by supporting our common foreign and security policy objectives with military means.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, raised questions in relation to ESDP and NATO. The ESDP is not NATO. We are not in the business of an EU territorial defence guarantee; nor should we be. Within the ESDP we must focus our energies on areas where we can make a real difference, but not a difference that would undermine NATO. That means strong support for increased co-operation on capabilities development

983
and it means a targeted financial commitment at a time when there are other calls on our resources. But, by working together, we can get more for our money, and that will offer real security dividends.
I believe that that point was made very eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. His reference to the Balkans and to our role in the Quartet on the Middle East was very much a case in point. He raised the issues of too many cooks in the foreign policy kitchen, the importance of better back-up for Mr Solana and better use of EU diplomatic missions. For a dreadful moment, I thought that the noble Lord had been a fly on the wall this morning during some of the discussions with ambassadors in the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre. His points are very well taken.
The noble Lords, Lord Grenfell and Lord Lea of Crondall, raised points about social policy.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will give way. I believe that she has come to the end of the section on foreign and security policy. One question hangs over the whole debate. Have the Government's representatives on the convention—they are the Government's representatives—agreed and therefore created government policy to the effect that the two pillars, including defence, security, justice and so on, should be collapsed into a single unified treaty? Has that been agreed? If it has, presumably it is government policy.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is not agreed. I stress again to noble Lords that nothing is agreed until the IGC; nothing is agreed until the Prime Minister agrees it.
I was going to mention some points relating to social policy and JHA. Those issues did not interest quite as many of your Lordships as did some of the other issues with which I have dealt. Perhaps I may deal with those in correspondence, in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, who made some very important points. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, also raised important issues concerning the balance between full employment and work protection.
I must say a few words about Council reform and Commission reform—a subject which interested the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan. The Government have long advocated that the Council should have a stronger role in setting the strategic agenda for Europe. Some reform was agreed at Seville last year, where this strategic role was explicitly recognised. But further reform will be needed to ensure that the Council continues to be effective in an EU of 25 members and more.
When the convention discusses the institutions later this month, it will, as many noble Lords have remarked, need to consider the presidency system. The six-monthly rotation is no longer efficient nor representative. It results in a lack of continuity in leadership. That is why we have argued for a fixed chair of the European Council, perhaps with some form of "team presidency" which would allow the chairs of the principal sectoral councils to be divided among member states for a decent length
984
of time. That idea is similar to the one put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Owen. We should also look at other ways of improving the Council. Crucially that will involve improving its visibility to the public in the way that so many of your Lordships have discussed.
I turn to the subject of Commission reform. For Europe to match the level of ambition that its member states want, we need a guardian of the collective interest. The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, was very worried about the Commission's power in that respect. But the Government believe that we need a strong body which uses its power of initiative to drive forward the detailed measures needed to implement the strategic agenda set by heads of government. I agree strongly with the forceful point put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that we need a body which uses its powers of enforcement to hold each member state to its commitments.
I agree wholeheartedly with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, said. I cannot envisage that any of us believe in our hearts that France would have lifted its beef ban voluntarily without such enforcement powers. That is why we are seeking to strengthen the Commission's powers of initiative and enforcement. We in Britain obey the rules. We need a strong Commission which ensures that all our partners obey the rules in the way that we do.
Therefore, we favour strengthening the Commission's role in driving through the agenda on immigration and crime. We need to give the Commission more authority to implement legislation agreed by the Council, such as on the crucial issue of opening up financial markets across Europe. We also need to speed up the process under which fines can be imposed after the Commission and the Court of Justice have found member states in breach of their obligations.
We also need to say something about European parliamentary reform. That would add to the already significant powers and responsibilities, so there is a corresponding case for the Commission to become more accountable as a result. The European Parliament should be able to exercise greater powers of scrutiny over the Commission, a point which many noble Lords have made in the past, and perhaps with Commissioners making more regular appearances before national parliaments too. Some have argued that the European Parliament should elect the Commission President.
I understand and support the basic idea of making the Commission President more accountable, but, like my noble friend Lord Tomlinson and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, I doubt that that is the right way to go about it. It might make the Commission stronger, but the cost might well be weakening its independence by making such an individual a prisoner of a parliamentary majority.
I turn to the interesting points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. Where does Europe end geographically and in terms of its power and competencies? We need to be part of crafting the answers to those crucial questions, not declaring that they are so difficult and complex that we simply opt out of discussion.

985
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, spoke about the CAP, a theme to which he often returns. Indeed, that is a good example. We must do something about the common agricultural policy. I hope that we are making progress on it. I do not believe that that is a lost cause, as the noble Earl seemed to imply. We are making progress. It is slow and painful but we have huge responsibilities. We cannot go on subsidising every cow in Europe to the tune of two dollars a day while we subsidise 1.2 million starving people around the world to the tune of one dollar a day and call ourselves a decent society. The Government want to be part of that debate and want to shape our future.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I would be grateful if she would answer the question which she began to answer and then shied away from. I refer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and me; that is, whether Russia is eligible for membership of the European Union.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not have a crystal ball. As things stand, I rather doubt that Russia would want to join the European Union, and that it would get over the threshold for even beginning discussions on the European Union. However, I cannot tell your Lordships that it is unthinkable that in 10 years' time Russia might not be in that position. Ten years ago we would not be discussing membership with the countries with which we are now discussing membership. When I first became a Minister we would not even have seriously discussed European membership with Turkey. We have made considerable progress. So, there is no crystal ball, but I can see that in due course such a position might be possible.
I shall conclude; I am sure that noble Lords 'wish that I would. The Government's message on the convention is, indeed, simple: a strong Europe is in Britain's interests and this Government are an active partner in Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Owen, was right in part. It is a difficult process. I rather thought that the noble Lord underestimated my noble friends and my right honourable friends. They are hugely seized of the problems and are tackling them. They may not always carry their arguments. My noble friend was frank about that in her opening address. However, they are tackling the problems with considerable intelligence and wisdom.
We have a vision of the Europe we want. It is a Europe that is better able to take decisions; more easily understood; more accessible to ordinary citizens; more democratic, where responsibilities are set clearly for all to see, and which enhances the quality of life of its citizens.
We are not alone in our vision. That is why we are happy to engage in the convention and why we make alliances with partners where we can. The Government's agenda represents a logical and effective way forward in shaping the European Union of the future. We look forward to the continuing
986
debate in the convention; and my noble friend and I very much look forward to the continuing debate in your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Convention on the Future of Europe: EUC Report
9.40 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 Convention on the Future of Europe (30th Report, HL Paper 163, Session 2001–02) and the minutes of evidence taken on 8th October (HL Paper 33).—(Lord Grenfell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Industrial Chemicals: EUC Report
9.41 p.m.
Lord Crickhowellrose to move, 'That this House takes note of the Report of the European Union Committee on Reducing the Risks: Regulating Industrial Chemicals (13th Report, HL Paper 81, Session 2001–02).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must say that at this late hour I am rather tempted to move that the House do now adjourn until 2.30 p.m. tomorrow. But I think that might cause hysterics on the Government Front Bench. I do not want to do that.
However, I must say that I do not think it is satisfactory that we have had to wait 11 months since publishing this report, and now have only an hour or so at this very late hour to debate matters of great importance concerning human health, the environment, the chemical industry and programmes of testing using vast numbers of live animals.
Because my noble friend Lord Selborne, the chairman of Sub-Committee D is also chairman of the UK Chemical Stakeholders Forum, I was asked to chair this particular inquiry; but I am thankful that we continued to benefit from my noble friend's enormous knowledge of the subject. I also want to express my thanks to our special adviser, Mr Nigel Haigh, and to our Clerk, Mr Tom Radice, for their invaluable contributions.
The debate comes at a moment when it may still be possible to influence the nature of proposed legislation designed to regulate the manufacture, marketing and use of a very large number of industrial chemicals. That there is a need for legislation is really unarguable. The UK Government in their 1999 Chemical Strategy say that they are,
"very concerned that we do not have even a basic assessment of the possible risks of most chemicals released into the environment in large quantities".

987
The European Commission published its White Paper Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy in February 2001. It stated that,
"the lack of knowledge about the impact of many chemicals on human health and the environment is a cause for concern".
The UK Chemicals Industries Association,
"fully supports the key health and environmental goals of the proposed legislation",
although it is critical on method and detail.
In June 2001 the Environment Council welcomed the White Paper as "an important first step", reaffirmed its commitment to the development of a new chemicals policy, but called for further work, emphasising the need for,
"streamlined, practical and effective procedures",
which are "realistically achievable"; and called for the Commission to present its proposals by the end of 2001.
A number of task forces were established to work on problem areas and the target date for more detailed proposals slipped to mid 2002. Judging by noises from Brussels, even Easter 2003 may now be an optimistic estimate. There is also a real danger that everything will slip beyond the European Parliament elections in June 2004 with further problems created by enlargement.
The White Paper set a target date of the end of 2005 for the registration of substances produced in quantities exceeding 1,000 tonnes per annum. That target is now almost certainly unachievable. This debate provides an opportunity to emphasise the need for the Commission to move with a greater sense of urgency; and for the Government to indicate their own views on the current timetable.
The starting point is that we appear to have an effective regime for the notification and evaluation of all post-1981 chemicals—approximately 2,700 of them at the time that we produced our report. However, the EU regime for pre-1981 chemicals has generated far less satisfactory information about the 30,000 chemicals produced in quantities of more than one tonne per annum, while only a tiny handful of risk assessments and risk reduction strategies have been published in respect of the 140 existing chemicals that are included in the lists of chemicals requiring immediate attention.
Faced by this clear evidence of failure, the Commission proposed a new regime to be known as REACH, with three main elements: registration, evaluation and authorisation. The idea is that the industry will be required to provide data and preliminary risk assessments for the 30,000 or so old chemicals similar to that produced for the 2,700 marketed since 1981. Manufacturers will have a powerful incentive to submit a complete registration dossier, because failure to do so may result in marketing being banned—an incentive lacking under the present arrangements. There will be much reliance on preliminary assessment by industry, with the
988
authorities evaluating only a minority of assessments, but with authorisation required for chemicals identified as of high concern.
In our report, we expressed great scepticism about the ability to deliver what is a highly ambitious programme with unrealistic timetables and equally unrealistic estimates of the resources required. We suggested that it might be a mistake to move at the outset to a single system that seeks to combine the arrangements for new and existing chemicals. We thought that the new legislation was likely to be complicated and contentious, and that the Commission would be adding to the difficulties if it tried to do everything at once.
In paragraphs 202 to 210, we set out a proposed programme that breaks up the legislative package into phased parts. We urged the Commission to get its priorities right and tackle first the chemicals that provide the greatest risk. We argued strongly that the resources required were being underestimated and expressed grave concern about the huge number of animal tests that would be needed to carry out the programme within the timescale suggested.
On animal testing, we said:
"The White Paper provides a rare opportunity to generate the political will in the EU to promote non-animal testing. The United Kingdom Government must take a lead in that and should make it clear in the Council that it cannot accept a new chemicals strategy that leads to significantly increased animal testing, since this would be unacceptable to the public and lead to failure of the strategy. The EU chemicals strategy must be linked to an EU strategy for minimising animal testing. The United Kingdom Government is more likely to be successful in pressing this argument if it has its own, well-funded programme for finding alternatives."
The delays that have already taken place suggest that we were right to warn of the danger of trying to produce a single, all-embracing piece of legislation instead of building it step by step over time, with the most urgent tasks tackled first. Unfortunately the oracles, in so far as they can be interpreted, suggest that we may have lost that argument.
Whatever is decided in the next critical phase will be important not just for the environment and health, but because of its potential impact on manufacturing industry. In the second paragraph of our report we emphasised that:
"Manufactured chemicals play a key role in the provision of goods and services on which modern society is dependent, and the chemical industry is Europe's third largest, employing 1.7 million people directly and with up to 3 million additional jobs dependent on it".
The Chemicals Industry Association expressed disappointment about what it called our,
"lack of emphasis on the key competitiveness issues posed by the Commission's proposals, and its omission of discussion of the potential impact on European industry".
In fact, we devote a good deal of our report to an examination of competition and world trade issues. In paragraph 147, we identified the many witnesses who argued that imported products must be covered by the new system both to ensure protection of health and the environment and to ensure that EU products remained competitive with finished products originating from

989
outside the EU. We drew attention to WTO issues. In paragraphs 164 to 172, we examine what is happening in the United States and in other OECD countries. We refer to the work being carried out following the UNCED conference in Rio in 1992 and other UN work. We say that, given the global nature of the chemicals industry, we welcome the growing attention of international organisations to chemicals policy and the co-ordination that is taking place. In paragraphs 135 to 145, we examine the real problems posed for downstream users.
Many of those competition points are helpfully picked up in the government paper published on 9th December 2002, which sets out three overarching objectives:
"Creating a fast, efficient and workable process of testing, screening and assessing chemical substances to provide the information necessary to control those substances of concern, starting with the most harmful, because of their impacts on human health and the environment; keeping animal testing to the minimum necessary to protect human health and the environment; and maintaining and enhancing the competitiveness of the chemical industry".
On the last point, the Government emphasise, as we do, the importance of the proposals being consistent with WTO and other multi-national agreements and of seeking a global approach to the management of chemicals. The paper emphasises that the EU chemicals strategy,
"should encourage innovation and maintain and enhance competitiveness".
In our report, we say:
"The highest priority should now be given to developing two items of legislation: authorisation of chemicals of very high concern; and registration and evaluation of existing chemicals … Whatever scheme of new legislation is brought forward we will only be satisfied if it: speeds the process of identifying chemicals that require risk management, enables risk reduction measures to be adopted without delay following identification, creates a sense of ownership among stakeholders and provides for appropriate post-marketing surveillance".
I welcome the fact that, on almost all the crucial issues, there is much common ground between the position adopted by our committee, the position of the British Government and the conclusions of the June 2001 Environment Council.
I conclude by emphasising the importance of speeding up action at home and abroad. The Commission must come forward with detailed proposals, but work on the wider policy must not be allowed to lead to further delay in evaluating the 140 priority chemicals already identified. In this country, the UK Chemicals Stakeholder Forum, under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Selborne, does invaluable work identifying priorities and finding practical solutions. There must be equally effective activity by the Environment Agency in producing its too long-delayed chemicals strategy and its promised study of a product register. There must be better coordinated activity by government departments and agencies and an effective system of post-marketing surveilla nee.
990
Consultation has gone on long enough. Positive action is now required by the European Commission and by the responsible authorities within the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Union Committee on Reducing the Risks: Regulating Industrial Chemicals (13th Report, HL Paper 81, Session 2001–02).—(Lord Crickhowell.)
9.53 p.m.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, I wish first, as leader of my party in Wales, to pay a brief tribute to the late Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. His background in Wales was a basic background, with which we are all familiar. An aunt of mine always used to say that a brilliant boy had come forward and gone out of our valley to make good. Many did so, through the aspirations of their parents.
Lord Jenkins was a wise, civilised man with a huge, balanced vision. I hope that that is the spirit in which I may address the issues raised in the EU Committee report. I liken him to someone whom I knew, who was blinded in the war but became a main board director of Shell Chemicals. He was a grammar school boy. My uncle was a chemist. I spent the whole of the 1960s in the chemical industry. Therefore, I am well out of date. Unfortunately, I was not a member of Sub-Committee D at the time that this report was published. I joined the sub-committee of the European Union Committee in December. I am particularly happy to welcome back my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer who has not been well but is now back to full health. I am pleased to see her because she will sum up the contents of the report, with which I am not as familiar as I should be.
In view of the background that I once had in the industry, I want to make a number of points. Typically, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, set out the basis of the report. It is only 12 miles from Crickhowell to Talgarth. Indeed, Crickhowell lies in the valley of the Usk and Talgarth in the catchment area of the River Wye. We have seen a number of issues of that type in the chemical industry. I worked on Teesside at one point. I noted that the River Tees was not as clear as either the River Wye or the River Usk. That was because of the preponderance of the chemical industry there.
I note the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, about the existing scheme since 1981 and the flaws in the 1994 EU regulations, clearly made in this report. Indeed, hardly any risk assessments have been made of the chemicals on the priority list. That is an appalling judgment because 1994 is some considerable time ago.
The EU White Paper proposes a new regime, outlined by the noble Lord, in the REACH proposals. The onus is on the industry to justify the use of chemicals. From a safety point of view, that may not necessarily be the primary consideration of the company concerned. On page 39, the report recommends that classification, packaging and

991
labelling of chemicals and preparations, the registration and evaluation of new chemicals, the registration and evaluation of existing chemicals, the restrictions on marketing in use, and the authorisation of chemicals of very high concern should be addressed. I concur that those recommendations should be contained in any future legislation.
It is desirable that the procedures are streamlined, pragmatic, effective and realistically achievable. However, it is difficult to define the word "pragmatic" in the issue of dangerous chemicals, particularly to human health and the environment. The idea of advocating the transfer of responsibilities to the industry, I believe is probably one which needs closer examination. Risk assessment is complex due to the diverse use of chemicals. As regards the degree of danger of those chemicals, the need for prioritisation is very important.
There is mention of a central entity to administer the control system and the difficulties that that might entail. I believe that there is merit in the conclusions of the report that perhaps a different approach should be taken. However, the whole question of finance and lack of resources is one which demands close attention. A levy with proper controls on bureaucracy may be one of the answers in helping to finance what is clearly an issue which is not properly resourced at present.
Briefly, I turn to one or two of my own experiences in the chemical industry concerning the impact of chemicals. I was involved in the development of paraquat in the 1960s. Many risk assessments were made. It was said that pigs had to eat 15 tonnes of potatoes which had been treated with diquat, its sister chemical, before they died. Unfortunately, one or two humans drank paraquat and diquat neat and died, which was not anticipated.
I visited factories producing chemicals, particularly ammonia which took the skin off my throat and the throats of other people. In those days, employees in chemical plants received a gold watch at the age of 65. Many of them did not reach that age and most were dead 18 months after retiring.
The issue surrounding organophosphates is alarming and needs to be examined in great detail. The spraying of chemicals creates a great deal of illness among operatives because the safety rules are not properly applied. As regards the treatment of seeds, when I was working in a particular situation I saw at first-hand operatives ingesting dust into their lungs. Clearly, they were very ill as a result and their lives were shortened.
The whole issue of sheep dip and its chemical problems is a running sore. When I first used a new sheep dip in 1985 I wondered why I was coughing and spluttering after dipping 250 ewes. On reading the label afterwards, I was horrified to see that it contained OP. It was the first time I had seen the warning and I never used an OP dip again. I have had a great deal of anxiety about the contamination of water courses and the release of sheep dips into them. In a little stream
992
which ran through my smallholding I once found 89 dead trout and had to report the incident to the Environment Agency.
It is vital that the codes are enforced and we must ensure that the wonder chemicals produced to solve many problems are properly vetted and tested. That is vital. I know things have moved on and have greatly improved since the time I worked in the industry. I welcome the report but we must ensure that the whole process is focused, particularly on the most dangerous chemicals. People's lives depend upon it. I want to know, as the report asks, what is the role of the Environment Agency. What can Ministers tell us about that in relation to these chemicals'?
We need an independent body to police the production, marketing and use of chemicals. Indeed, my historical knowledge of the agrochemical industry is that regulation at that time was inadequate. Stakeholders had too much power in the industry over regulation and standards. The result was that although chemicals were registered and tested, controls at the point of use and an understanding of how dangerous they were was inadequate. Post-marketing surveillance, as stated in the report, is vital. In future, the UK Government and EU involvement is essential at a high level and it is important that that is transparent in the interests of all our citizens.
10.3 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, for giving us the opportunity to debate the report today. I also thank him for his lucid summary of what we did. I was pleased to become a member of Sub-Committee D—I was formerly a member of Sub-Committee C, which became Sub-Committee D. This is right up my street. Those noble Lords who know me well will be aware of my interest in chemicals, although hitherto I have generally confined my interests to the human health effects of exposure to toxic chemicals used in an agricultural context.
I found the inquiry which resulted in the report most interesting, although not very enlightening. Much of the evidence highlighted systemic deficiencies of which I was already aware. For example, several years ago I asked the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, the Pesticides Safety Directorate and the Health and Safety Executive what independent tests would be conducted to ensure the safety of the products they licensed or authorised. "None", was the response. All three organisations rely upon the information provided by manufacturers. The EU White Paper acknowledges that much of the data provided are deficient, particularly for chemicals in use prior to 1981.
There are not even any independent laboratory quality control checks. I was informed that the manufacturers are expected to do their own batch tests, and one manufacturer told me that it would be far too expensive for them to check every batch of chemicals produced. This has meant that when things

993
have gone wrong it has been humans, or flora and fauna in the environment, that have sounded the alarms.
I can understand that there are circumstances when it is impossible for laboratory or field tests to forecast every problem that may arise in practice. What I have always found disturbing is the failure of those responsible for protecting human and environmental health to respond to the distress signals, even, it seems, when they are faced with incontrovertible evidence of harm. Toyber's dictum, which states that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, has been ignored far too often.
I am constantly bemused by the extreme lengths to which the precautionary principle is invoked in defence of the current policy relating to scrapie, BSE and CJD, when there is as yet no scientific evidence of any causal link. When a chemical formulation—pure chemicals are rarely put on the market—is claimed to be causing damage to human health, the evidence, we are told, is anecdotal. Any attempt to persuade the manufacturer, the licensing authority or even government Ministers to conduct timely causal research based on the classic principles is strenuously resisted. For some strange reason the precautionary principle is given a different definition when chemicals are the culprits, even when there is scientific evidence of damage caused. Remember how long it took for blue asbestos and DDT to be withdrawn.
I believe that a major handicap has been our own failure to recognise that we have been both unreasonable and unfair to expect those who give permission for a product to be marketed also to be responsible for admitting that they got it wrong. As I have already mentioned, the data supplied during the licensing process are, more often than not, limited. Individual chemicals are tested for various toxic properties but I understand that the safety of the final product is determined only by extrapolation.
Chemical formulations frequently contain what are described as inert ingredients. These, I have discovered, can be very toxic in themselves. Phenols and epichlorohydrin were both inert ingredients in sheep dips. Both were eventually removed from the sheep dip formulations because they are extremely toxic in their own right, but who knows what their effects have been while they were in use? No-one has tested them. In some cases, an inert chemical will have a synergistic or potentiating relationship with an active ingredient. This may not be discovered until problems occur in the field after a prolonged period of use.
The report, at paragraphs 151 to 163, details the evidence the committee saw and heard on the subject of post-marketing surveillance. We expressed our surprise at the lack of co-ordination in monitoring for the presence of industrial chemicals. The witness from the World Wildlife Fund-UK felt that post-marketing surveillance was not a satisfactory means of detecting adverse effects from chemicals. She would prefer that chemicals with unsafe properties did not come on to the market.
994
Thousands of new chemicals are produced every year. Even I recognise the fact that it would be impossible to prevent any unsafe chemicals from being marketed. We still have much to learn about the way in which humans, animals and plants cope with exposures to new chemical formulations. We are only now learning that some humans are more vulnerable to the effects of some chemicals than others. I suggest that we should be alert to complaints of ill health associated with the use of particular chemicals and that they should be regarded in the same light as miners' canaries—as an early warning system.
When there is a case of food poisoning, all the stops are pulled out until the cause is found. Death can result from food poisoning, but so, too, can it result from chemical poisoning. Why is it that one is given more importance than the other?
I wholeheartedly concur with the committee's recommendation that the Government should develop a policy on post-marketing surveillance for industrial chemicals and in particular that the policy should include the uses of chemicals and effects on users. I should like to see that policy implemented rapidly. I should also like to see the development of a system separate from the licensing authorities for the reporting of suspected adverse effects of exposure to chemicals. In the past I have suggested that environmental health officers would be ideally suited to such a role. They already have the right title. They have the investigative training and experience. Who better?
We still have a very long way to go before we can provide a safe environment. We must not forget that most of the chemicals introduced since the Industrial Revolution have been of great benefit to us; neither must we forget those that have caused enormous harm to humans and to the environment. This report makes wise recommendations. I hope that the Minister will ensure that they are heeded.
10.11 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my interest in this subject first arose when I was a Member of the European Parliament with chemical interests in my Euro constituency. I was also, for a number of years, a non-executive director of a major British pharmaceutical company. Currently, I am an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Chemical Industry. Perhaps I can therefore say that I take an informed interest in matters affecting the chemical industry, but I cannot claim to be an expert, as are so many other participants in this debate.
I do know, however, that the chemical industry is one of our few remaining successful industries, providing direct employment for a substantial and highly skilled workforce nation-wide, and it is our top manufacturing export earner.
I am also aware that, in spite of all this success, people working in the industry have a feeling that they are under-valued, unappreciated and regarded as uncaring and concerned only with making a profit. In saying this, I acknowledge that the noble Countess,

995
Lady Mar, who is understandably vigilant and concerned about reducing risk, has to be congratulated on all that she has achieved in bringing defects in the system to light.
The European Union Chemicals Policy Review came as by far the biggest public policy issue to hit the industry in decades. As my noble friend Lord Crickhowell has said, the industry endorses the White Paper's aim of ensuring a high level of protection for human health and the environment. There is full support for this and for the need for a comprehensive system that clearly and openly demonstrates that chemical substances are being used safely, and which replaces the current, rather piecemeal regulatory regime which serves no one's real interests.
In replying, will the Minister answer the following questions? I apologise if I duplicate or overlap with questions raised by other speakers in the debate or which have been raised in the report.
Does the Minister agree that it should be possible to develop a simpler, more focused and more proportionate system to test the safety of those relatively few substances which may be of concern? As has been said, the European Union proposals would mean a hugely expensive and bureaucratic system and the use of millions of animals in an untargeted testing process.
Will the Minister further agree that many chemicals used in production are chemically or physically bonded within final products—for example, plastic articles and rubber tyres? As I understand it, even if in their initial state some chemicals may be hazardous, it does not follow that handling a product made from such chemicals will cause problems. Is it therefore necessary to test a chemical, using animals, which would tell us nothing about its risks when bonded within a product?
Does the Minister agree that the added costs of the REACH proposals would allow foreign imports of products not subject to the same testing procedures, to compete unfairly? Furthermore, does he agree that the effect of these proposals might also encourage further migration of new manufacturing processes to non-European locations? Those concerns and questions have been raised not only by the British chemical industries but by their European counterparts.
In summary, a control system is needed that is practicable, proportionate, has realistic deadlines, enhances innovation and minimises the adverse effect on international competitiveness. The committee's report and this debate should help to achieve that.
10.15 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, the whole House is grateful to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, but no-one more so than me. As he explained, I meant to chair Sub-Committee D but had to rule myself out because of a conflict of interests, as I am chairman of the UK Chemical Stakeholder Forum. It was to everyone's advantage that my noble friend was able to chair the committee and to report so succinctly this evening. He
996
made later speakers' job much easier by covering rapidly the salient points of the report and highlighting that even the strongest Euro-sceptic would agree that in this field it makes sense to have a Europe-wide strategy. Chemicals float around in the air. It is a European business.
It is highly important that we do not create a competitive disadvantage by putting in place regulations in one country that would not apply to another. My noble friend Lady Hooper said that, while that is true of Europe, there remains a danger that Europe might put in place competitive barriers compared to other regions. My noble friend is right to draw attention to the issue. Ultimately, we should be looking at an OECD-wide policy, involving all the manufacturers of chemicals.
As my noble friends Lord Crickhowell and Lady Hooper, stressed, the chemical industry is large. It makes a highly important contribution to the gross national product, the Treasury, employment and our quality of life. Make no mistake, our quality of life would be greatly different were it not for the benefits we all derive from the chemical industry at every moment of our lives.
The debate has moved at times from the subject of industrial chemicals to herbicides, pesticides, sheep dips, and so on. It is important to remember that we are discussing industrial chemicals. There is already European legislation to deal with a range of other chemicals. It is nevertheless a strange fact that, while we have a relatively successful but by no means perfect policy for what are called new chemicals—that is to say, those introduced since the early 1980s—no proper risk evaluation has been made of 30,000 or more chemicals in production of more than one tonne in Europe. That is surprising, particularly when, by any criteria, whether one determines by high-volume production or high concern—bio-cumulative, toxic or persistent chemicals—many chemicals that have been around for 20, 39 or 40 years register as high concern. We still do not know the extent to which they impact adversely on humans or the environment.
As my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said, the Existing Substances Regulation was put in place in the early 1990s. Yet, 10 to 12 years later, we still have no worthwhile product. This Government, rightly, set the pace in Europe by saying that it was time that there were a Europe-wide strategy that made good the defects that the Existing Substances Regulation failed to address. I say happily from these Benches that the British Government have led the way, from the days of the European Council at Chester in 1998 to the publication of their own White Paper in 1999. One of the products of that White Paper was the UK Chemical Stakeholder Forum, which I am proud to chair.
This was a stopgap measure—like so much in Europe, I fear that it will last rather longer than we would wish—recognising that it will take too long to get Europe-wide legislation in place to register, evaluate and authorise the chemicals that are thought to be of concern. The Government wisely suggested to

997
the chemical industry, the environmental interests, the animal welfare interests, trade unions and other interest groups that it would be helpful if there could be a voluntary forum that could get together to decide on the criteria to determine priority chemicals that should be evaluated faster under voluntary measures in the UK and to put in place voluntary measures that would redress some of the public concerns that were clearly not being dealt with at a satisfactory speed at European level.
Having taken on what I thought was a poisoned chalice, I am surprised to say that in practice all members of that forum—they are all voluntary members—have collaborated fully. The chemical industry has been extremely co-operative. The existing substances regulation was put in place in the early 1990s to identify those chemicals of high concern. The chemical industry, like everyone else, recognises that it is not acceptable that there is no obvious product from that legislation 10 years later. All sorts of reasons can given, but one clear reason is that the system plays into the hands of those who call for more data and think of an excuse to procrastinate. That is precisely what has happened.
There are three fundamental issues that a European White Paper should achieve. I can cut out most of what I was going to say, considering the late hour. There is a fundamental role for industry. Industry in this country accepts that and I hope the same is true in the rest of Europe. Industry holds a lot of data. In some cases it is probably stretching the bounds of credibility to say that the information should be concealed from the public because of commercial confidentiality. That is true of some of the information, not all of it.
There is an obligation on industry and on the downstream users to make as much information as possible open to the wider stakeholders—the public. It needs to be put in the public domain. The White Paper rightly emphasises that, under the REACH system, once a chemical is identified as a priority chemical, the onus is on industry to produce the information required for the dossier. The fundamental flaw under the existing substances regulation has been that the onus has been on the regulator. The White Paper addresses that important issue.
I was also surprised to find when the committee took evidence that, even though a substance may have been recognised under the existing substances regulation as being thought to be of concern, manufacturing industry says, with all honesty and quite accurately, that it does not always know who the downstream users are. As my noble friend Lady Hooper says, it may well get bonded in such a way that it becomes inert, but you do not know until you discover what uses it is put to. If you do not know what uses it is put to, how on earth do you do a whole-life analysis?
When the UK chemical stakeholder forum was identifying a particular chemical that was manufactured in this country, one of the first things we did was ask the manufacturer who the users were and how they were going to be monitored. It was accepted that the substance was of concern and had an impact
998
on the environment, but how was the impact going to be limited? First, you form a club of the buyers of the chemical. Had they done it? No, yet for eight or nine years this chemical had been identified as being of concern under the existing substances regulation. We have urged them to form a downstream club of users. Then you can start working out the whole life cycle of these chemicals. That is a start.
The industry has not served itself well by not anticipating these sensible and fundamental requirements. By putting the onus on industry, the White Paper will do just that. That was the first of my fundamental requirements of any White Paper. The second, which has been touched on by others, was that it should be relevant and proportionate. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell has pointed out that the proposals are not proportionate. They are going to be bureaucratic, they are going to involve a lot of animal testing and it is going to be very difficult to test this number of chemicals, even if all the national facilities in the member states are brought into service. Therefore, one needs to prioritise fairly dramatically. If, as we suspect, many of the 30,000 chemicals about which we are talking are not of high concern, for goodness sake let us put them on the back burner.
The third fundamental principle is that we should be looking at something much wider than Europe. I accept the point made by my noble friend Lady Hooper—namely, that there is no earthly advantage in reducing the manufacture of chemicals in Europe if you simply import chemicals of the same nature from a lower safety regime elsewhere. You would simply be exporting the problem to countries that are less able to cope.
The committee was deeply impressed by the evidence from Mr Visser of the OECD. I believe that the long-term solution— I emphasise that this is long term—will appear when we can look at the major manufacturing countries involved with chemicals to agree, not just on the priority list of chemicals of concern but also on the proposals for evaluation and subsequent risk management on a global basis.
10.26 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, having listened to much of the preceding fascinating debate on the future of Europe, it became evident to me that one of the least-recognised success stories to come out of the European Union has been the fact that environmental legislation, which is much needed on air pollution, water pollution, habitat preservation, and chemicals may be initiated in one country and then spread in a way that is much needed in a single market that does not respect geographical boundaries. That applies especially to environmental issues. This debate is a good example of many of the issues about which people are talking theoretically.
However, I was disappointed to receive via the Internet this evening the news that Greece has apparently pushed back to the second half of the year the EU chemicals review deal, thereby reinforcing the

999
fears of the chairman of the committee. I hope that the extra time can be used productively by governments to work out some of the more tangled issues involved.
In my notes I find that I have highlighted similar issues to those already mentioned by other noble Lords. There are three matters to which I should like to draw the attention of the House. At the beginning of the inquiry I was astonished by the fact that, prior to 1981, there had been no regime for notifying and evaluating chemicals. Indeed, not having been involved in the chemicals industry, I was singularly ignorant of that fact. There seems to be a mountain of work to be done to rectify the situation. The White Paper has brought the chemical industry into the light, if not the spotlight. Under the very able chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, I believe that the chemical forum will make good progress in this country.
I hope that the recommendations made in our report to the Commission will be helpful. I shall focus upon just a few of them in my remarks. I begin with the fact that the work is currently very slow, and, as I have just mentioned, has been further delayed. It is also not sufficiently focused. In their response to our report, I am glad that the UK Government say that they are pushing for clear time-scales. I very much hope for a further assurance from the Minister tonight that the next few months of delay will be used for ensuring that the issues are addressed so that when the matter comes before the Council of Ministers it will be in as complete a form as possible.
The most astonishing finding during the inquiry was the discovery that there is still a debate about whether the persistent bioaccumulative, toxic and very persistent chemicals should be included in the authorisation system for action on chemicals of high concern. Surely by their very name we can see that they are likely to pose an environmental risk. Along with endocrine disrupters, this collection of chemicals may not perhaps be as instantly emotive to humans as something labelled "carcinogenic"—that is, something from which we could get cancer—but we cannot ignore the damage to swathes of species from chemicals that build up to high levels and will persist for decades in the environment. I very much concur with the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, on the total life usage of chemicals. What happens to those chemicals when they enter the waste stream is one of the big issues that the review should tackle.
The report also highlights the contentious issue of animal testing. Earlier in the week, one newspaper report said that Sir Paul McCartney had criticised the World Wide Fund for Nature. I regret that criticism. I believe that the World Wide Fund for Nature is trying to find a solution to the very real issue of chemicals in our environment. The fact that whelks are changing sex and are unable to breathe due to environmental pollution caused by endocrine disrupters is every bit as cruel as product testing on rabbits in laboratories. Such pollution affects a less furry and cuddly species, but it affects a much larger environment.
1000
There is every reason to end in vivo animal testing. The committee also heard compelling evidence that the provision of sufficient resources—an issue on which I understand that the UK Government are pressing hard; I hope for an update from the Minister—could result in more reasonable methods of in vitro testing. We need more research on the environmental effects of chemicals. Unfortunately. however, not all member states agree that more resources are needed in this sphere.
There is no point in the European Union attempting to reduce such risks if the regulatory regime is subsequently challenged by WTO members who are not covered by it and wish to import chemicals into the EU. What is the Minister's understanding of the position regarding the WTO? The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, has already raised the issue, but I should also like to highlight it.
I shall not repeat the comments of other noble Lords on the report. However, I am very pleased with its recommendations. I was also encouraged by the statement of Caroline Lucas MEP in relation to one issue examined by the sub-committee. Her statement shows that Members of the European Parliament read with interest the reports of your Lordships' House. I hope that they will act on the recommendations in this report.
It has been a great privilege to serve on Sub-Committee D for the past three years. I have learned a great deal and appreciated the opportunity to hear from experts on a wide range of subjects. I also very much enjoyed working with such knowledgeable Members of your Lordships' House. It is a great sadness that we must rotate off the committee, but I suppose that it is only fair that other noble Lords should be able to enjoy the experience. I hope that I will have the opportunity to serve on the committee again.
10.33 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, we have been asked to take note of the report of the European Union Committee, Reducing the Risk: Regulating Industrial Chemicals. We have had the opportunity to read the report and to hear the speech of the eminent noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, the committee chairman for this set of investigations. We have also heard from the noble Earl, Lord Selborne; the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, who I am glad to see well and back in her place; the noble Lord. Lord Livsey, who is new to the committee; and the noble Countess, Lady Mar, whose reputation goes before her. I congratulate the committee on yet another terrific job of scrutinising proposed European Union legislation and on presenting considered and practical observations to urge the European Commission to temper its ambition with realism as it develops its proposals for a new European Union chemicals strategy.
The Select Committee recommends that the reform should be narrowed in scope to limit legislative delays, take better account of the complexity of downstream

1001
chemical usage, and take the opportunity to develop new methods of testing to reflect public demand for reducing animal testing.
As we have heard, the White Paper has stimulated debate over the future shape of a policy designed to regulate manufacture, marketing and use of industrial chemicals in order to protect human health and the environment. But, as so often with European Union legislation, the proposals are aspirational. They constitute the highest ideals but their ambitious programme is not properly costed, has unrealistic timetables and, as drafted, is impractical. I refer to a single system for new and existing chemicals. The new legislation needed will be complicated and contentious and, as the report of the European Union Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, points out, the Commission will add to the difficulties of having the legislation adopted quickly if it tries to reform everything at once. We on these Benches agree with the report that the priority must be the reform of the regime for existing chemicals and that action is taken on chemicals of very high concern.
The proposal to transfer responsibility to industry, including downstream users to conduct preliminary risk assessments, is a centrepiece of the White Paper, as we have heard. But the regulation as presently proposed could cost Europe's chemical industry £5 billion—inevitably those huge costs will be passed to the end consumer—affect the jobs of 1.7 million people, and indirectly of many more, and require the testing of up to 30,000 compounds.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, and the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, reminded us that Europe is presently the world's largest exporter of chemicals but faces growing competition from the United States, the Middle East and Asia. The chemical industry and the CHI emphasise that if the legislation goes ahead as currently outlined, it will be anything but effective and put European manufacturing at a competitive disadvantage. Our citizens could fall victim to unknown perils and risks from countries of manufacture whose standards and sources we cannot know or control.
We heartily support the purpose of chemicals policy to minimise or eliminate the adverse effects of chemicals while securing the benefits that they bring. We support the call of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, for speeding up action at home and abroad. He says that consultation has gone on long enough. As he pointed out, we have waited—or is it wasted?—11 months waiting to debate this report. Let us call for positive action by the European Union and by the responsible authorities within the UK, and let us have a more realistic European Union chemicals strategy.
10.38 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I am grateful for the debate and for the committee's work in producing a report
1002
which the Government take seriously. Most of its recommendations are very much in line with what the Government wish to see as regards Europe. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, for initiating the debate and to other noble Lords who have spoken. I am delighted to see the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, back on form.
There is a certain degree of consensus in the House about what needs to be done. As the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, underlined, the basic problem is that we have a backlog of tens of thousands of chemicals currently in use, and, in many cases, in use for decades, on which we have insufficient data to prioritise and to address the hazards and potential risks to human health and the environment. Although the Government remain committed to getting the best of the current system for assessing and controlling existing substances between now and the coming into force of a new one, it is clear that the existing approach is inadequate to address this fundamental problem and that is why we need a major revision of the regime. It has to be a workable system, which recognises priorities. The discussions about prioritisation and scope are therefore important. Here, the Government have a slightly different approach from the committee. The system must operate as fast as possible to screen, prioritise and assess and, if appropriate, control the chemical substances. That means not overloading registration with large numbers of low priority substances, but it also means initially focusing on detailed work on the substances of most concern. That is to say, we must focus on those substances that are not already controlled by other regulatory regimes, that are available on the market, that meet the criteria for authorisation and that have raised in various ways the concerns of the public and the enforcement authorities.
That degree of prioritisation, however, does not mean that other substances should be outside the eventual purview of the system, but they should be addressed when those of most concern have been dealt with. That would enable benefits for the environmental and human health side to be gained as rapidly as possible while not blocking up the system. It would also mean that the system as established could be extended to other chemicals. In order to priori tine in that way, we need to operate to fixed deadlines and a clear sense of priorities.
I turn to the proposition, repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, which is effectively a request that we should have a two-tier system covering existing and new substances. It is true that the new substances directive works well, but improvements can be made. If we want the proposed REACH provisions to be comprehensive, new substances must be included from the start. Therefore separating them out and reducing the scope in the way that the committee suggests would not be appropriate. Having two regimes would undermine REACH, and the regulatory burden of running two regimes would impact on both regulators and the industry. Small and medium-sized firms especially would find it more difficult if we had a two-track system. In the long run, we see no advantage in

1003
running such a system. We see a high priority being put on establishing priorities for introduction of the new system.
On a more specific point, several noble Lords including the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hooper and Lady Miller, referred to the issue of animal testing. The system must get the balance right between the need to have enough information to take decisions on substances and the degree of animal testing that that involves. Regrettable though it may be, it is clear that with the current state of scientific knowledge, it may not be possible to obtain all the necessary information without some animal testing. The Government strongly believe that much can be obtained from tests that do not involve vertebrate animals. We pushed that view in the negotiations in Europe, and will continue to do so. Between now and the coming into force of the regulations, further alternative test measures should be pursued and developed. The Government have called on the European Commission, and on the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods in particular, to do what it can in that area. That is the Government's priority.
We support the minimisation of animal testing and the need to ensure that the test methods used reflect the so-called three Rs—reduction, refinement and replacement. It is important that the methods used are recognised internationally, however, which would avoid duplication of studies for regulatory authorities outside the European Union.
One key element of the system will be the authorisation process, and its scope. The Government agree with the committee's report that, in addition to CMRs and POPs, the environmental impacts are equally important. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, made that point. Therefore, PBT and VPVB substances should be included in the scope of authorisation when criteria have been agreed. In other words, the environmental impacts are as important as the human health impact. We are urging that point through the discussions in the process as well.
A number of noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell, Lord Livsey, and others—referred to the way in which the enforcement authorities will operate and have resources to cope with the increased workload. Clearly, demands will be placed on the regulatory authorities by REACH, and it will depend on REACH being fast, workable and efficient if we are to maximise the resources required at the administrative level. That burden will fall particularly on existing regulatory authorities. It is therefore important that industry should share part of the burden of the new regulatory regime. Under the present regime, regulatory authorities have to some extent borne a disproportionate part of the cost.
The Environment Agency will clearly be the major regulatory authority in England and Wales. The exact role of the agency—this responds to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey—will depend on the exact form of the legislation. Other parts of the Government—the Health and Safety Executive and other bodies—will be
1004
involved in the implementation of REACH. In the meantime, the Environment Agency is carrying out much of the background work. It has various roles in ensuring that we are in a position to adopt the regulatory regime once it is finally agreed. Meanwhile, the Environment Agency has been developing its own strategy, which was put out to consultation and which ended in September last year. I hope that by the end of this month, the agency board advisory group will consider a paper on how to take that further. The final stage of the implementation plan will go to the agency board in approximately May of this year.
That outlines the work already being undertaken by the main enforcement agency. In addition, much work has been done by industry and other interested organisations. I pay tribute in particular to the stakeholder forum to which the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, referred and of which he is chair. It has played an important role in developing thinking on the new EU strategy and has engaged many stakeholders. The fact that it has operated—stopgap or not—as an effective forum is a result of the chairmanship of the noble Earl. In particular, the contribution of that forum's member organisations and the work done in preparing the UK for the Commission's working groups, were particularly welcome. We look to the forum to continue to develop its views on the new EU chemical strategy as it develops. In addition, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry have, along with their officials, held a wide range of meetings with stakeholders in this area, and the process is continuing.
Several noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilcox and Lady Hooper, and the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, underlined the importance of the chemical sector to our economy and the employment situation. It is one of our major industries and major success stories over many decades. It is therefore important that we do not do anything in the process that undermines the competitiveness of the chemicals industry and, to some extent, also the downstream industry. It is therefore important that we act in partnership with the industry when introducing the regime and with regard to the operation of the process of enforcement and information flow.
It is also important that we engage the downstream industry. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, referred to the problems of knowing precisely to what uses some of the chemicals are put in the downstream industry. If the legislation is not carefully constructed, some of the impacts of downstream use could have severe consequences in environmental and safety terms and in economic terms if the legislation were geared in the wrong way or inadequately took account of the impact of those industries—a wide range of industries use chemical products.
Therefore, the two-way flow of information along the supply chain is particularly important, as is how it is managed. We need to provide the correct information for safe use and we also need to engage all parts of that chain in the operation. In this area, as in others, carrying out robust regulatory impact

1005
assessments is important. The Government's existing partial RIA, prepared on the basis of the Commission's White Paper, covers some of these industry-wide issues. We shall need to update that as the legislative proposals become more concrete. More work is needed in that area in relation to the impact on both the UK industry and the industry Europe-wide.
We were right to be reminded, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, and the noble Countess, Lady Mar, of the basic problem that we are attempting to tackle and of the detrimental impact that the misuse of, and exposure to, some chemicals has on human beings and, indeed, on the environment. Organophosphates are a particularly drastic example of that and past agricultural use of organophosphates, in particular, is a major area of concern. That is why we are continuing to take the utmost precautions.
I note the noble Countess's remarks in relation to post-marketing surveillance. We support the need for such surveillance and we see an important role for industry in carrying it out. We are discussing, and will discuss further, with all stakeholders what form a post-marketing surveillance system should take.
This regime is directed principally at chemicals and the use of those chemicals manufactured within the European Union. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said in his opening remarks, it is also important that we take account of the effect of imported substances and imported articles. With regard to articles manufactured in the UK or within the European Union, the substances used will already have been registered and their risk to the environment or to human health will be subjected to appropriate controls.
However, we do not have the same degree of control over substances in articles imported into the EU from outside. If those substances are completely uncontrolled, then naturally the normal economic drivers will encourage manufacturing industry to relocate. The risk to human health and to the environment may be exacerbated if we switch to imported goods. Therefore, I believe that the noble Earl's reference to the need to take a wider than European approach to this matter must ultimately be the appropriate course for us to take. Thus, issues that go wider than the EU are involved here.
The noble Earl also referred, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, to the WTO implications, which form an important aspect of this issue. The Government are concerned to ensure that the EU legislation which is finally adopted is defensible in WTO terms. We do not wish to see the important goals of this policy in terms of protection of health and the environment put at risk because of the problems for international trade. Frankly, we know that the United States is already interested in this policy and is increasingly exercised about its potential consequences. Therefore, we need to keep an eye on how it is developed and presented and how it becomes acceptable to our trading partners in this respect. The successful implementation of the legislation is, in part, dependent on it being acceptable to our WTO partners.
1006
One of the most critical remarks made during the course of the debate concerned the timetable. It is a vexed issue and, as all speakers have underlined, the need for action is urgent. Yet the legislation w ill be complex; it will be far- reaching; and it runs into all the international as well as EU-based difficulties. Poorly constructed legislation has been known in the European Union, and it would be disastrous were this legislation to be half-baked.
We recognise the need for urgency but also welcome the statement of the Environment Council in December that it would undertake a formal consultation this year. We would encourage the Commission to consult as widely as possible and to take into account these wider issues.
As to the precise timetable, we understand that the Commission may make proposals for legislation within the next few months. To take up the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, we understand that the Greek presidency does not plan to put a priority on that in terms of examining the proposals during its presidency. Nevertheless, if the proposals are put forward, we would intend to use the time to consult widely within the UK. If they are not, we shall continue to work with the Commission during the next six months to ensure that those proposals are effectively developed.
Having said that, and reverting to the initial assessment of the timetable by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, on such complex pieces of legislation it is difficult to say when the process is likely to finish. Frankly, I would be at least as cautious as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who said the end of 2005. Under the present process our assessment might be even slightly later than that; 2006 would be my guess at this point. We obviously want to ensure that we speed up that timetable as far as we can without running into the difficulties of having inadequate or misconstructed legislation in the process.
The Government understand that the Commission is working on a series of building blocks as a method of breaking down that task. That seems sensible. A final decision on whether there will be one piece of legislation or four pieces of legislation has not yet been taken. Nevertheless, the Government expect that the legislation will take the form of regulations rather than directives, which simplifies the matter slightly, but the timescale is still complex and major decisions on its format have yet to be taken.
Thankfully, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, summarised for us the views of the Government's recent comment on this in December, our three objectives being efficiency and workability; minimising animal testing and maintaining or enhancing the competitiveness of the industry. Those are our three prime objectives. In addition, there is one other. The Government will want to see a system that

1007
is transparent and which is understandable to all parties, including not only the industry but also consumers, workers and other users of the substances with whom we are dealing.
That requires effective drafting and, in the course of such drafting, effective negotiation, discussion and consultation with not only the industry which produces these items but also the wide variety of industries and others who use them. That process is already under way both at European and UK level. If we can conduct that process as rapidly as possible we stand a chance of not only meeting the timetable I have just outlined but possibly slightly enhancing it. However, that is not a Government commitment. The processes of the European Union are well known to your Lordships who have taken part in this debate. It is most important to get on to the statute book of the European Union effective, enforceable and understandable legislation, which we can make work here within the UK.
1008
Meanwhile, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, the Select Committee in both its former and current composition and, in particular, all noble Lords who took part in the debate.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. At this late hour and in the light of what the Minister has said I shall make one point only. If we are to have delayed legislation—and I fear that we shall have some delays—it is even more important that the Government should take note of what we said about the importance of effective co-ordination and activity by Defra. by English Nature, by the Environment Agency and by British government organisations. They need to get on with the work that has to be done. We found quite big gaps in that respect. I hope that the Government will seize the opportunity, as we await the Commission's proposals, to get on with those urgent tasks.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at eleven o'clock.

  Queen's Counsel
  Queen's Counsel
  Strangford: Schools
  Strangford: Schools
  Northern Ireland Film and Television Commission
  Northern Ireland Film and Television Commission
  Northern Ireland Arts Council
  Northern Ireland Arts Council
  Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund
  Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund
  Ministers and Civil Servants: Home to Office Travel
  Ministers and Civil Servants: Home to Office Travel
  Northern Ireland Civil Service
  Northern Ireland Civil Service
  Irish Language Agency
  Irish Language Agency
  Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure: Linguistic Diversity Branch
  Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure: Linguistic Diversity Branch
  Ulster Scots Agency
  Ulster Scots Agency
  Waterways Ireland
  Waterways Ireland
  Northern Ireland Hospice
  Northern Ireland Hospice
  Shannon Navigation
  Shannon Navigation
  Belfast Agreement: Cross-Border Bodies
  Belfast Agreement: Cross-Border Bodies
  Food Safety Promotion Board
  Food Safety Promotion Board
  Aid to Post-conflict Countries
  Aid to Post-conflict Countries
  Reproductive Health: DfID Funding for International Organisations
  Reproductive Health: DfID Funding for International Organisations
  China: Reproductive Health Programmes
  China: Reproductive Health Programmes
  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Ethiopia: HIV and AIDS
  Ethiopia: HIV and AIDS
  Global Health Fund: HIV and AIDS
  Global Health Fund: HIV and AIDS
  Iraq
  Iraq
  Smallpox
  Smallpox
  Highways: Winter Maintenance
  Highways: Winter Maintenance
  Persons Granted Exceptional Leave to Remain in the UK: Housing
  Persons Granted Exceptional Leave to Remain in the UK: Housing
  Single Currency
  Single Currency
  Gift Aid: Works of Art
  Gift Aid: Works of Art
  Legal Services
  Legal Services
  Discrimination: Enforcement Powers
  Discrimination: Enforcement Powers
  Wideroe Airlines Plane Crash
  Wideroe Airlines Plane Crash
  Major (Retired) Christine Lloyd: MoD Communications
  Major (Retired) Christine Lloyd: MoD Communications
  Eurofighter Typhoon Aircraft
  Eurofighter Typhoon Aircraft
  Computer Misuse Act: Prosecutions
  Computer Misuse Act: Prosecutions
  Cultural Property: Offences
  Cultural Property: Offences
  Hunting
  Hunting
  Timber Products
  Timber Products
  Pigeons
  Pigeons
  Environment Agency: Cost Recovery
  Environment Agency: Cost Recovery
  Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control: Inspections
  Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control: Inspections
  Family Visitor Appeals
  Family Visitor Appeals
  Deportation
  Deportation
  Local Authorities: Administrative Errors and Enforcement Agents
  Local Authorities: Administrative Errors and Enforcement Agents
  Asylum Seekers: Health Screening
  Asylum Seekers: Health Screening
  Legionella Outbreak in Barrow-in-Furness: PHLS Support
  Legionella Outbreak in Barrow-in-Furness: PHLS Support
  Local Authority Children's Homes
  Local Authority Children's Homes
  Antenatal Clinics
  Antenatal Clinics
  NHS: Research and Development Budget
  NHS: Research and Development Budget
  Mental Health: Black and Minority Ethnic Groups
  Mental Health: Black and Minority Ethnic Groups
  Hospices
  Hospices
  Potters Bar Points 2182A: Communications and Responsibilities
  Potters Bar Points 2182A: Communications and Responsibilities
  Procurement
  Procurement
  Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal
  Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal
  National Lottery: New Opportunities Fund and Community Fund
  National Lottery: New Opportunities Fund and Community Fund
  Export of Works of Art
  Export of Works of Art