Sitting of 30 January 2003

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

  GM Crops
  Mr. Simon Thomas: If she will make a statement on the commercial planting of GM crops. [94156]
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): No GM crop currently has all the regulatory approvals needed for commercial growing in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Thomas: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but I am looking to the future. May I refer her to the report recently published by the Health and Community Care Committee of the Scottish Parliament, which states that
  "allowing GM crop trials to continue does contravenes the precautionary principle"?
  In any future discussions that she has at a European level—of course, that is where decisions are now taken on commercial planting of GM crops—will she undertake to ensure that no planting of such crops will take place in Wales or Scotland without the express permission of the devolved Administrations in those countries?
  Margaret Beckett: Obviously, what happens in Wales and Scotland is an issue for the devolved Administrations and not just the United Kingdom Government. I am not entirely sure whether I am familiar with the specific report to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but it has always seemed to me, just as it did to my predecessors, that the right way of proceeding is to examine the evidence and conduct proper trials. That is what the Government are endeavouring to do.
  Joan Ruddock: Further to those points, is my right hon. Friend aware of the position of the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly in saying that the field trial results should be available before the public consultation on which she is embarking is carried out? The steering group of the GM
  990
  public debate board has said that it finds it extremely difficult to envisage effective consultation without common timing throughout the UK. Will she take those points into consideration and understand that we, the public, feel very strongly that the results of the trials should be available to inform that public debate?
  Margaret Beckett: Of course, I always take seriously the views and concerns of the steering group, but it is not entirely clear to me that the public feel quite so passionately about the precise timing and conduct of the debate. As we are beginning to embark on the inquiry process, what I most want to know is what questions the public wish to have answered. I want to know what information the public want, as opposed—I say this with great respect to all those who are engaged in the dialogue—to what everybody is telling us that they want. I want to hear from the public themselves what they want to know, so that we can do as much as we can to give them the information that they seek in order to allow them to form their own views and judgments.
  I cannot remember my hon. Friend's precise words, but I am not sure whether she represents entirely accurately the views of the Scottish and Welsh Administrations, although they have certainly taken more of a view that the issue should be bound up with the crop trials. My worry has always been that, if we were to make the crop trials themselves the main feature of the dialogue and debate, we would be accused of not having a proper debate, but merely one about paving the way for decisions. That is not the case.
  Mr. Robert Key: May I encourage the Secretary of State to be far more robust and proactive and to put far more time and resources into the public debate about GM crops and genetic modification in general? Will she ensure that the argument is not allowed to rest solely in the hands of the self-serving scaremongers who apparently represent a lot of views in this country? The vast majority of my constituents are hungry for knowledge, keen to make sensible judgments and, where progress can be made and benefits from GM shown to exist, they are ready to embrace them.
  Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman clearly expresses one of the many strands of dialogue and debate on this matter. I note yet another plea for more expenditure from the Conservative Benches, but I fear that the £300,000 or thereabouts that we are prepared to put in seems a large sum. We are certainly very anxious to encourage informed dialogue on the issues.
  Andrew George: If the Government really want to reconnect with farmers, as is stated in their farming strategy, which was published last month, why are some elements of the Government so keen to push GM technology on farmers when consumers are at best showing no interest and at worst advancing good arguments as to why farmers should remain GM-free? Whose interests would be served by pushing GM crops on farmers? The Prime Minister seems keen on the issue and Lord Haskins is also keen to lock farmers into

  991
  contracts, but if the farmers want to reconnect with consumers, they would be best advised to leave well alone.
  Margaret Beckett: I am not aware that anybody is trying to push GM crops on farmers. Certainly, no one in the Government is doing so. I remind the hon. Gentleman that a perfectly proper legal process is under way whereby an application was made to conduct a process of assessing the possibility of commercially growing some of the crops in this country. It was decided by my predecessors that a proper trial should be conducted of the effects of growing such crops on the immediate environment. It is being conducted and that seems an entirely sensible way of behaving.
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: In introducing crop trials into this country, has the Secretary of State taken note of the experience in America, where the Organic Soil Association reports that in one Canadian province the whole organic rape sector was lost owing to the carrying out of such trials? Will she carefully consider the experience in America before introducing trials of any great magnitude in this country?
  Margaret Beckett: I am aware of the report that the hon. Gentleman cites. He will be aware that there are a plethora of such reports, which do not all say quite the same thing. The question focuses on crops that are being trialled in this country, which are not necessarily comparable. For example, one of the problems identified in the Canadian studies was that of gene stacking. That can occur only with crops that can cross-pollinate each other, which is not the case with those that are being trialled in this country.

  Livestock Movements
  Phil Sawford: If she will make a statement on the 20-day standstill rule for livestock. [94157]
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): We announced in a written statement on 23 January that, subject to satisfactory further consultation with the livestock industry, we intend to reduce the standstill for cattle, sheep and goats to six days with effect from 4 March 2003.A supporting document explaining that decision has been placed in the Library and published on the Department's website.
  Phil Sawford: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I am sure that many in the agricultural industry will welcome those changes, because the previous arrangement was having a serious impact, especially on smaller farmers. As the restrictions are intended to combat the spread of serious contagious diseases, which could be catastrophic, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that she will take action against any farmers, landholders, dealers or others who seek to break or circumvent the rules?
  Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. He will know, and other hon.
  992
  Members will recall, that the Government were strongly advised by the Royal Society inquiry and the Anderson inquiry to maintain restrictions until an assessment could be carried out. I assure my hon. Friend that one of my reasons for mentioning the consultation with the livestock industry is that the changes are subject to the industry's commitment to a package of measures to improve the level of biosecurity and disease surveillance. In everything we do, we must be sure that we do what we can to minimise the risk of disease entering the country, while, much more importantly, minimising the risk of the spread of disease. We shall certainly keep that well in mind.
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: I, too, welcome the reduction of the standstill rule to six days, as will Northumbrian farmers. However, does the Secretary of State recognise that some of the other proposals that are out for consultation are causing real concern? I want to highlight in particular the movement restriction that limits the movement of sheep sold through livestock marts to 150 km, or 90 miles. That means that Northumbrian farmers will be unable to move sheep to the abattoirs that are used by all the major supermarket companies, and will be able to sell sheep into that market only by selling directly to the supermarkets, whose prices, as we know, will not be generous.
  Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming our proposals. Of course I understand that there will be concern about some issues. The point of the consultation is to enable us to consider them all, and we shall certainly do so.
  Lawrie Quinn: On the evening of 16 January, I spent an interesting three hours with 18 sheep farmers from the north York moors, who will be very pleased to hear my right hon. Friend's confirmation of the reduction in the standstill rule from 20 days to six days. They asked me to press not only the Secretary of State but her noble Friend Lord Whitty to consider how soon they would be able to switch the six-day rule on to an emergency basis, so that in the event of a future outbreak the regulations could be introduced at that time of difficulty in the industry. Will my right hon. Friend address that issue?
  Margaret Beckett: It depends a little on what my hon. Friend was being urged to advocate. If people are anxious that we might need to increase the six-day period in a more difficult situation because of the implications of a disease, I assure him that the Government would review the matter at an appropriate time. However, if some people in the industry advocate a return to the days of no movement restrictions, I find that hard to contemplate. No Government would be keen to risk that, not least because of the huge consequences of the recent outbreak for the industry and a range of other economic interests in rural areas.
  Mr. John Hayes: It would be churlish not to welcome the Government's late conversion on livestock movements—[Interruption.] I say "late" because the industry and Conservative Members told the Government weeks, even months ago to change the 20-day rule because of

  993
  the damage that it was inflicting. Hon. Members of all parties highlighted that. Does the Secretary of State understand that the Pauline conversion will be useless if the changes to the operating procedures cripple our essential livestock markets, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) suggested? The threat to those markets is profound and it has been well highlighted in Farmers Weekly, as the Secretary of State knows. Will she guarantee that changes to procedures on keeping animals overnight, washing and disinfecting vehicles and the distances that animals travel will be genuinely practical and cost neutral to the industry? As she is so worried about the import and spread of disease—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman gets one question.
  Margaret Beckett: I have not forgotten that one of the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues—I do not believe that it was him—could not understand the reason for maintaining the 20-day standstill. That was an extraordinarily foolish comment given that the Government had been strongly advised by two independent inquiries, and continued to be advised by the chief veterinary officer and our chief scientific adviser to maintain such restrictions.
  Far from being a late conversion, we moved to change the rule as soon as we received clear, further evidence, which we were advised to seek. As I said to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), we will do our best to ensure that the steps that we take are as practical as possible. The hon. Gentleman claimed that the changes would be useless if they cripple markets. I stress to him and to those on whose behalf he claims to speak that nothing crippled the markets as much as the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease.

  Nightingale Hall Farm
  3. Mr. Hilton Dawson: What action she intends to take in relation to the operations of the animal rendering plant at Nightingale Hall farm, Lancaster. [94158]
  The Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life (Alun Michael): The responsibility for regulating air pollution, including odours from animal by-product rendering plants, lies with the local authority, in this case Lancaster City council, subject to appeal to the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Dawson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the revolting stink at the fats and proteins plant at Nightingale Hall farm in Lancaster has blighted the lives of thousands of people in the city for decades? Will he accept my congratulations on being close to achieving the effective regulation, which eluded us in 18 years of Tory Government and the blighted 27 years of my Conservative predecessor? Will he comprehensively resist any weakening of the odour boundary condition that he has suggested that he is minded to impose to
  994
  protect my constituents, and thus ensure that he enjoys the honour and approbation of the fine, historic city of Lancaster?
  Alun Michael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the manner of his further inquiry. Smells from rendering are known to be especially offensive and I appreciate that there has been a long-standing problem in his constituency.
  On stringency, my hon. Friend knows that the Government issued revised guidance on air pollution standards for renderers in 2000, which toughened previous standards and specified that plants should operate without offensive smells exceeding the process boundary, except in limited circumstances. A "minded to" decision letter was sent on 17 January about the plant in my hon. Friend's constituency, and comments were requested by 14 February. We will issue the final decision as soon as possible after considering the comments.

  Corporate Environmental Reporting
  4. Sue Doughty: What steps her Department has taken to encourage corporate environmental reporting; and if she will make a statement. [94159]
  The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): We have pursued action in several different ways. Most importantly, the Government have set out proposals for strengthening the statutory regime for company reporting in our White Paper "Modernising Company Law".
  Sue Doughty: I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he recall that in October 2000, the Prime Minister set a challenge to the top 350 companies to bring in environmental reporting by the end of December 2001, and yet a year later, only approximately a quarter are doing so? What is the Minister going to do to make that happen faster?
  Mr. Meacher: I am very keen that that should happen faster, and I certainly have sympathy with the hon. Lady's point. However, between 60 and 70 per cent. of companies in the top FTSE 100 now provide environmental reporting, and some of them at considerable length. About 30 per cent. of the top FTSE 350 report on their activities, with another 40 per cent. making some form of public statement about their environmental engagement. Matters are progressing, and as I said, the White Paper "Modernising Company Law" requires that about 1,000 of the most economically significant companies in the country include information on environmental, social and community issues in a new operating and financial review—which they will be asked to produce—where those matters are material to, or relevant to, the understanding of the business. After five years of exhorting industry, that is now the right way forward.
  Linda Perham: I welcome what the Minister said in his initial response, but will the Government's commitment to greater corporate responsibility and the public reporting of corporate

  995
  environmental standards, which they made last year at the Johannesburg world summit on sustainable development, result in the implementation of the intergovernmental agreements through national regulations in this country?
  Mr. Meacher: I have already explained what we propose to do about environmental reporting. The wider issue of corporate social responsibility was on the agenda, and a decision was reached within the text of the WSSD. We are certainly keen to follow that up, and discussions are taking place within the Government as a basis for further, wider international discussions on how proper measures on corporate social responsibility can be implemented.
  Mr. David Lidington: Is it not time for the Government to set more of an example to the private sector in terms of corporate environmental reporting? Can the Minister confirm that every Government Department is obliged to prepare a sustainable development report to show how its policies and expenditure plans help to deliver the Government's environmental objectives? These reports are currently kept secret, and rather than lecturing the private sector about its responsibilities, will the Minister commit himself today to making those Government reports public, and thereby start to practise what he is so keen to preach?
  Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is not quite right. The Government Green Ministers Committee, which I chair, has published three annual reports that give detailed information on a whole range of indicators on the performance of all Government Departments. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but I suggest that he look at those reports. I am extremely keen that there be full transparency and publicising of the performance of Government Departments—both where we do well, as we generally do, and where we do not do so well. I should also point out that the Government's framework for sustainable development on the Government estate requires Departments to report publicly on environmental performance in respect of environmental management systems, travel arrangements for staff and their environmental impact, and water usage. We are considering taking those measures further.

  Pig Farrowing Systems
  5. Ms Julia Drown: What steps she plans to take to ensure that safe and effective pig farrowing systems are implemented. [94162]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): We are funding research into the welfare of the sow and her piglets from farrowing to weaning. We are not yet able to recommend alternatives, because of the adverse effect on piglets.
  Ms Drown: I thank the Minister for that reply. Animal welfare groups take the view that farrowing crates are unnecessarily cruel, and look to the experience of other countries that look after farrowing pigs in
  996
  different ways. Has my hon. Friend discussed with the industry ways of creating commercial incentives to look into more animal-friendly ways of looking after farrowing pigs, and to examine not only crates but other issues such as hard flooring and supervision at birth so as to improve both the care of pigs and the survival of piglets?
  Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend raises a serious point. Of course we want to improve the welfare of farrowing sows, but I am sure that she will understand that farrowing crates are used because of the risk of sows rolling on piglets, and piglet mortality. We have been funding a range of research that has considered the points that she has mentioned. Unfortunately, although some of the prototype farrowing crates performed quite well in research conditions, in commercial conditions the mortality rate was nearly double the normal rate. We are funding research into the management of sow and litter in a free-farrowing environment, which includes early life programming, stress responses in the farrowing sow, and an epidemiological study of risk factors associated with pre-weaning mortality on commercial pig farms. All those studies are examining better ways of improving welfare, while recognising the commercial nature of the operation.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: I hope that the Minister will take account of any new animal welfare measures in the pig industry in the context of the rest of the EU, and that we will not take any unilateral action. We are all concerned about animal welfare, but I hope that he will emulate the example set by the Conservative Government when I secured Europe-wide agreement on a timetable for the abolition of veal crates. It can be done—and if the Minister wants any tips I shall be happy to share some with him.
  Mr. Morley: The hon. Lady will know that I too had some involvement in some of those campaigns at the time. She will also know that we have reached EU-wide agreement to phase out sow stalls and tethers across the EU, as has been done unilaterally in the UK—although we are disappointed that the phase-out date is 2013; we would have preferred a much earlier date. We have made it a priority to advance animal welfare issues on an EU-wide basis, and also to include them in World Trade Organisation talks.
  Mr. Gwyn Prosser: I welcome the Government's general support for the new EU directive that requires the provision of straw and other natural products in pigs' enclosures to enhance their well-being. However, groups that campaign for animals are bitterly disappointed to hear that the Government are considering watering down the directive's requirements and substituting plastic footballs on chains for those natural products. Will my hon. Friend reconsider, and implement the whole EU directive without dilution?
  Mr. Morley: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that we have no intention of watering down the directive. Some of the press reports that he may have read have been somewhat inaccurate; it is always a mistake to believe every thing that we see in the

  997
  newspapers. I can assure my hon. Friend that "manipulable materials" are such things as peat, compost substitute or straw. which pigs can manipulate, and which improve their welfare and the quality of their environment; things such as chains and balls are also included, but pigs can soon get bored with those. The directive covers a range of measures that are part of current good practice in the pig industry. We are pleased to see those standards being established across the whole EU. I assure my hon. Friend that we will not see pigs queueing up to join our Sunday league football teams.

  Private Sewers
  Paddy Tipping: What research she has commissioned into the condition of private sewers. [94164]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): Mr. Morley—[Laughter.] Sorry, I meant to say "Mr. Speaker". I have not quite got there yet.
  W.S. Atkins has been appointed by the Department to carry out an 18-month research contract to identify and examine the problems arising from the current arrangements for existing private sewers, especially with regard to their ownership and maintenance. A consultation paper seeking views on possible options for overcoming the problems will be issued in the spring.
  Paddy Tipping: Does my hon. Friend accept that, given the scale and long-standing nature of the problem, the research will be welcomed? When he is preparing the forthcoming water Bill, will he look closely at trying to address this issue?
  Mr. Morley: I understand that this is an important matter in many hon. Members' constituencies, and my hon. Friend has been active in raising the problems of private sewers with the Government. The W.S. Atkins study is designed to ascertain the scale of the problem, and it will report in the spring. After consultation on the report, costed solutions will be prepared for consultation in the autumn. The water Bill will acknowledge some of the problems, and it will deal with sewer connections outside the curtilage. However, it is not designed to address in detail the problem that my hon. Friend has described.
  Mr. John Bercow: I acknowledge that many unadopted private sewers are in very poor condition and would almost certainly benefit from substantial upgrading and investment, and that there is an argument for an industry-wide protocol. However, does the Minister accept that there is almost no problem known to human kind that would not be worsened by nationalisation?
  Mr. Morley: It is not a matter of nationalisation. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Government have agreed a protocol with developers and builders to ensure that the standard of sewers is consistent. That helps in relation to adoption, but I accept that there are problems. Many of them are the result of the failure of private companies to install sewers properly. In some
  998
  cases, they expect the taxpayer to pick up the bill. We must look at that carefully, because it is no consolation to the many people who are suffering as a result.
  Ms Joan Walley: It is all too easy for private sewers to be out of sight and out of mind. It is important that the Atkins research is used to best effect. Will my hon. Friend undertake to make sure that the research's recommendations are included in the Ofwat review of water prices, with a view to adopting private sewers?
  Mr. Morley: The review that is currently under way is looking at the regulator's role in matters such as sewer flooding. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), this is a big issue. I know that my hon. Friend has also been active in the matter, and that she has particular problems in her constituency. The W.S. Atkins study is the right way to proceed. We need to understand the scale of the problem, which may be quite large. We also need to understand the costs involved, the implications, and how best to address the problem.

  Water Framework Directive
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the European water framework directive on UK industry. [94165]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): The Government published an assessment in 2001 and we plan to publish an updated version later this year.
  Mr. Swayne: The initial consultation included an estimate that implementing the directive would cost agriculture between £0.6 billion and £2.9 billion. When will the final consultation begin? Will the Minister undertake to ensure that it will include the draft regulations?
  Mr. Morley: The consultation is under way, and we have had two versions already. The hon. Gentleman will know that implementation of the water framework directive will last a considerable number of years—up to 2015. There is therefore plenty of time to look at the issues involved. However, we cannot escape the issue of diffuse pollution, to which agriculture is the biggest contributor, especially with nitrates and phosphates. We are addressing that problem by establishing nitrate-vulnerable zones. Much of the work included in the costings that have been made is already in place, and that is why the possible totals vary so widely. We are aware of the implications for agriculture, but we also accept that serious issues remain that must be addressed.
  Mr. John Gummer: Will the Minister bear it in mind that European legislation has had an almost universally valuable effect on water in this country? Without that legislation, Britain's water would be in a much worse state. Does he agree that the directive is another measure that should be supported universally?
  Mr. Morley: Yes, I do agree, and I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's support. The water quality of our rivers has consistently improved, as have drinking water standards. European directives have played a part in achieving those improvements.
  Norman Baker: Will the water framework directive not mean a lot more policing for the Environment Agency? How will it achieve that when it has said, for example, that it will take it at least 20 years to visit even those farms with a high risk of nitrate pollution? The agency is also reviewing only 1 per cent. a year of industrial discharges in the north-east, rather than 25 per cent. a year. Clearly, the agency needs more money. yet the chief executive told Members of Parliament yesterday that there will be a 12 per cent. cut in environmental protection money next year. Why is that happening?
  Mr. Morley: The Environment Agency will receive more money next year. It wants to address a range of issues under its programmes and plans. It is taking a risk-based approach to enforcement, and I think that that is right. There are enforcement implications in that, but the water framework directive contains many common-sense measures that will address water quality and the ecology of our river systems. There will not necessarily be huge implications for enforcement, but I recognise that there will be some.
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: By the end of the year, the Government will have consulted three times on the water framework directive. How valuable are those consultations when up-to-date cost analysis figures have yet to be published? Have the Government's own consultants not said that the cost to farming will be around £287 million a year? Can the Minister guarantee that the directive's implementation will not be adversely affected by budget cuts at DEFRA? Why is there no reference to the water framework directive in the draft water Bill?
  Mr. Morley: The water Bill is complementary to the water framework directive, which is designed to achieve different objectives, particularly on catchment plans and catchment management. We are addressing costs in the consultation, but, inevitably, in dealing with a measure that will cover the period to 2015, it will not be possible to have clear costings until we know exactly what the implications are. I remind the hon. Gentleman that a great many of the delivery mechanisms for implementing the water framework directive are currently being put in place. Those costs can, therefore, be taken into account, and they will not fall on farmers, industry or consumers.

  Rural Proofing
  Mr. Andrew Rosindell: If she will make a statement on the rural proofing of legislation. [94166]
  The Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life (Alun Michael): Just over two years ago, the rural White Paper made the commitment that all relevant Government policy developments would be rural-proofed. Legislation is included within that definition.
  1000
  I am pleased to say that our colleagues across Government are increasingly working productively with us on the rural agenda.
  Mr. Rosindell: The Minister will be aware that the Countryside Agency reported on 11 April 2002 that progress in the vital area of rural proofing had been very slow. He will also know that a further report prepared last October has not been published. Why is that so, and does the policy remain integral to Government thinking on rural policy?
  Alun Michael: Last year's report indicated that a lot of progress had been made, but that there was a great deal more to be done. I agreed with that judgment at the time. The report prepared halfway through the year was intended to help accelerate the process in Departments and was not meant to take the place of the annual report, which will come out this year. I hope that that will demonstrate the progress that has been made by Departments across Government. I work closely with the Government's rural-advocate, Ewen Cameron who chairs the Countryside Agency, and we have met colleagues across Government to accelerate the process.
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: When my right hon. Friend next does some rural proofing, will he rural-proof the roll-out of broadband? The rural parts of my constituency simply do not have access to broadband, which is crucial to developing the kind of new small businesses that are vital to regenerating the rural economy. For a long time, my constituency suffered poor transport infrastructure with narrow, winding roads. It seems now that the same is happening with the electronic roads—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister should not answer that question; it was far too wide.
  Mr. Colin Breed: Will the Minister give us some assistance as to what is happening at present on rural proofing for broadband?
  Alun Michael: May I answer both that question and the one put by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard)? The Government have recognised the importance of broadband and the need to rural-proof the delivery of broadband in this country. I am pleased by the way in which colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry and in the rural development agencies—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Is broadband the Minister's direct responsibility?
  Alun Michael: The rural proofing of it is, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: The Minister will know that it is not legislation.

  Radioactive Waste
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: When she expects to make recommendations about the disposal of radioactive waste. [94167]
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): Following consultation, we and the devolved administrations will set up a new independent body to review all long-term options for managing UK solid radioactive waste and to make recommendations to us. We shall establish it as soon as possible and we hope to receive its report and announce our decision on the UK's long-term strategy by 2006.
  Dr. Ladyman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. She is right to want to come to the correct decision and to bring people along with her. However, it seems to me that a consensus has emerged among environmental groups and the industry that we should deposit that material underground in a way that makes it possible to recover it later if necessary, and that the only reasonable place for that is at Sellafield. As we shall reach that conclusion whether we take one year or four years to discuss the matter, should we not make the decision now and concentrate on making the process safe and determining how to compensate the local community for its involvement?
  Margaret Beckett: I agree with my hon. Friend that at present there seems to be a growing number of voices making some of the points that he has just made. However, experience of the subject suggests that as soon as anybody starts to think that there is a consensus and to coalesce around it, a lot of other voices are heard saying something wholly different. Select Committees in both Houses recommended that the course of action that we are pursuing is right. As it will probably take billions of pounds and about a hundred years to deal with the issue, it is probably still worth trying to put in the investment up-front to get it right.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when Nirex considered Sellafield, it found that the geology of the area was not suitable?
  Margaret Beckett: Yes, I am aware of that. That is part of what I meant when I was replying to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman). He identified a number of elements and said that a lot of people think this or that and that a lot of people think that there should be retrievable underground storage. That is all true, but unfortunately as soon as one starts to get more concrete and to decide where the pattern of agreement might emerge, difficulties emerge with it. We have set in train a process to try to ensure that we build up an understanding of what really is the broad basis of acceptance and that is the right thing to do.

  Sustainable Development (Mozambique)
  Mr. Harry Barnes: What arrangements she has made to discuss matters of sustainable development and climate change with the Government of Mozambique. [94168]
  The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): We do not have any immediate plans to discuss sustainable development or climate change with the Government of Mozambique.
  Mr. Barnes: Might it not be fruitful for the Government to engage in such discussions? The Government of Mozambique overcame tremendous problems caused by floods in that country about two years ago so, given our experience of flooding in this country, there might be a useful cross-fertilisation of ideas. For instance, the Speaker of the Mozambique Parliament organised a fund to assist people in Yorkshire, so we should be doing everything that we can to ensure that lessons are learned on both sides.
  Mr. Meacher: Of course, I entirely agree with that. Offhand, I do not know how much aid was provided by the Department for International Development at the time of the severe flooding in Mozambique in 1999 and 2000, as a result of the extreme climatic conditions, but I have no doubt that it was considerable. I should certainly welcome further collaboration between our countries. The key point, as to whether climate change is a significant factor in the increased magnitude and frequency of flooding throughout the world, is the importance of ratification of the Kyoto protocol. I am hopeful that that will be achieved in the first half of this year. Russia is the only country that still needs to ratify for the treaty to come into operation. President Putin has already given a commitment that he wishes that to happen and we are hopeful that the formalities will be achieved by the middle of the year. If they are, it will certainly be of considerable importance to Mozambique and many other sub-Saharan African countries.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the people of Mozambique made a most generous contribution to the people of the Vale of York following the severe flooding in parts of the area in November 2000? Would it not be appropriate, therefore, for the Department to seek an early meeting with the Mozambique Government with a view to undertaking joint research into the causes of climate change, which is leading to more flooding on flood plains such as the Vale of York?
  Mr. Meacher: Of course, substantial research is already being undertaken—the United Kingdom is a world leader in this—by the combined capabilities of the Hadley research centre, which is part of the Met Office, and the university of East Anglia. I am keen that there should be closer co-operation between our two countries. Mozambique made a remarkable and very welcome offer to the Vale of York and to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). I am happy to discuss

  1003
  with the Department for International Development how we can deepen that co-operation to the benefit of both countries.
  Mr. Tony McWalter: Given that my right hon. Friend's Department has a significant number of environmental and agricultural scientists, would it be appropriate for him to try to ensure that scientific expertise is made available more widely? In particular, will he channel some of that expertise through DFID to ensure that countries such as Mozambique may tap into it, as expertise is often precisely what they lack?
  Mr. Meacher: I very much support that proposal. There is no doubt that the way in which we can most help the developing countries is through more quickly and effectively building up capacity there, with more technological transfer and the spreading of scientific and technical expertise. Britain has a real offer to make. We already do such work. As hon. Members have mentioned Mozambique, I will certainly speak to my colleagues in DFID to find out how much further that work can be taken.

  CAP
  Sir Archy Kirkwood: If she will make a statement on the latest proposals for reform of the common agricultural policy. [94169]
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): I welcome publication of the Commission's legislative proposals for reform of the CAP, which were discussed for the first time at the Agriculture Council earlier this week. They will form a good basis for what will he hard negotiations in which we shall be both positive and proactive in pushing for an early, substantial and balanced agreement that delivers a workable and fair deal for farmers.
  Sir Archy Kirkwood: While I acknowledge the need for CAP reform, does the Secretary of State share my concern about the present financial viability of cereal holdings throughout the United Kingdom? Does the right hon. Lady accept that the totality of prices available to cereal farmers plus the arable aid do not meet production costs? Later today, Scottish farm income predictions will show that the incomes of cereal producers in Scotland will suffer a further fall. Against that background, cereal producers are worried about the continuing proposals to cut intervention prices and to introduce further compulsory set-aside. Will she be careful to get enough flexibility from the review of the CAP to ensure that the viability of cereal holdings throughout the UK is guaranteed for the future?
  Margaret Beckett: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are concerned about getting the right basic package as well as sufficient flexibility to reflect local problems. I confess that I am not immediately familiar with the sort of figures that he expects for the incomes of cereal farmers in Scotland. Certainly, there is a welcome increase in statistics on farm incomes. We expect those to be in the public domain in the near future. While I do
  1004
  not suggest for a second that that will resolve the considerable problems faced by people in the farming community, it is obviously beneficial.
  Paul Flynn: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Consumers Association's calculation that the average family in Britain pays a £16 farm tax every week and that 80 per cent. of that money goes to the richest 20 per cent. of farmers? If the CAP is to be reformed, is not it essential that the £1 million subsidies paid to huge farming businesses are changed so that those small farmers whose future is seriously threatened get a fair deal?
  Margaret Beckett: There is always argument about specific figures that come out in different studies, but I certainly accept, as most people do, that the CAP's present structure places considerable costs on consumers and taxpayers. Certainly, it must be one of the goals of reform to try to change that and produce a system that is fair, but we would like to see structures and proposals emerge from the reform package that are fair to all farmers.
  Mr. Michael Jack: Does the Secretary of State share my concern that French attitudes to CAP reform may undermine Europe's position in the context of the Doha declaration and the World Trade Organisation talks that are to come? Is she in any way building a coalition of support to counter French positions and to ensure that, under the modulation proposals, sufficient money is made available for rural redevelopment?
  Margaret Beckett: It must be a prime goal of the negotiations to ensure that enough money is available on the right terms, with the right flexibility and low level of bureaucracy, for rural development. I entirely agree with that point. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's initial remarks, I am anxious to ensure that all of us in the EU get the balance of our negotiating approach to the WTO meetings right. I am very conscious of the suggestion that, because Europe was not proactive at a sufficiently early stage in the Uruguay round, we ended up getting the sticky end of the negotiations. There is a strong area of discussion in the Council of Ministers about how we get that balance right.
  John Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in years gone by, the CAP brought ruin and despair to many third-world agricultural economies because of the policy of dumping cheap food on those economies, with obvious consequences? Will she do her best to ensure that those policies are not repeated in future, so that cheap food is not dumped on the third world? Does she also agree that, despite the best efforts that were mentioned earlier, there is an increasing feeling that—perhaps partly because of the French position—the CAP is ultimately doomed, which would provide a sort of solution to the problems that many Labour Members would welcome?
  Margaret Beckett: It is many years since I first came to work full time in politics, and one of the first things that I had to do was write a pamphlet explaining the CAP—I have never quite got over it. So I understand

  1005
  the point that my hon. Friend makes about the difficulties that have been caused not only elsewhere in the world, but in Europe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) highlighted a few moments ago. Ever since I wrote that pamphlet, I have believed that CAP reform was an urgent necessity.
  Mr. David Lidington: Will the Secretary of State say whether the Government share the Country Land and Business Association's analysis that, on the basis of the Commission's current proposals, British farmers, who receive about 13 per cent. of direct payments under the CAP, will be expected to shoulder 26 per cent. of the costs of CAP reform? Will she also say whether the Government consider that that would be a fair outcome for British agriculture and whether she will be campaigning for British farmers to bear a more proportionate share of the costs of reform?
  Margaret Beckett: Without entirely endorsing the precise figures—various people come up with different studies—I can certainly say that we have some concerns about the precise impact of the legal proposals that are on the table at present, and we have concerns about whether they are entirely fair to British farmers. I have made that point already, very forcefully, to Commissioner Fischler, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to make it in the negotiations.

  Rural Post Offices
  David Taylor: What recent discussions she has had with colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry about the continued viability of rural village post offices. [94170]
  The Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life (Alun Michael): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had very productive discussions with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the rural post office network last summer. Since then, I have been closely involved in discussions and decisions leading up to the DTI's announcement in December of a £450 million support package over three years for the rural network. That is a very significant and welcome announcement, and I will continue to work with that Department on this issue.
  David Taylor: In the DEFRA public service agreement, which the Minister probably has on his bedside table, target 4 specifies that the Department must improve the accessibility of services to people in rural areas. How will the progress report on public service agreements, which is due to be published this spring, deal with the fact that 1,000 village post offices have closed since 2000?
  Alun Michael: The target is to improve accessibility to cash in rural areas. Post offices make an important contribution to achieving that target, and DTI officials have been fully involved in drawing up our plan for how we will achieve it, but that is not the only way of doing it. Increasingly, if we are to provide the service that people need in rural areas, we must recognise that sometimes people make choices that do not involve
  1006
  using local services. They might access services when they visit town or travel to work, reducing the call on local public and commercial services. We will therefore have to find new ways of making sure that we achieve such objectives. I assure my hon. Friend that the support to the post office network is an important part of making sure that we improve the accessibility of services for people in rural areas.
  Mr. James Gray: Will the Minister take an early opportunity to look at the forms and leaflets produced by the Post Office on how to apply to receive child benefit and pensions in cash rather than through a bank account? If he does so, he will discover that the Post Office seems to be directing people intentionally towards the bank account option, making it extraordinarily difficult for them to get benefits in cash. A particular point of concern is that the forms will only be produced on 24 March to be ready for 1 April. Does he agree that if people get their benefits through bank accounts rather than in cash, that will spell doom for hundreds of rural and urban sub-post offices?
  Alun Michael: I have discussed that issue with colleagues and the Post Office. What the Government are seeking to do is to make sure that choice is available to people, not to push them in one direction or another. People in rural areas should be able to exercise choice, as should people living in urban areas. The hon. Gentleman should not trivialise the very difficult issue of making sure that services are available to people in rural areas. I am sure that his comments about forms will be considered by those who design them. It is a question not just of forms, but of availability of services.
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Obviously, we welcome the discussions that are taking place. Can further discussions take place to support rural post offices, and what role can my right hon. Friend's Department play in that? Will he also ensure that there is a continuation of next-day delivery, and that discussions take place with Postcomm as soon as possible to ensure that that happens?
  Alun Michael: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. Although I do not intend to stray into areas that are the responsibility of other Departments, we are keen to work with them to make sure that a high quality of service is provided to everyone. On the provision of post office services, several pilot projects up and down the country—I have referred to the Waters Upton initiative, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will open in a few weeks' time—are bringing together a number of commercial and non-commercial services. As a result, more services will be viable in rural areas than would be the case if they stood alone. That is the way that we need to approach the provision of services in rural areas. I share my hon. Friend's concern about ensuring that there is equity of service for people in those areas.

  Retirement Policy
  Dr. Andrew Murrison: What her Department's retirement age policy is. [94172]
  The Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life (Alun Michael): The normal retirement age is 60. All staff below the senior civil service may elect to remain in service until the age of 65 subject to continued efficiency and organisational need.
  Dr. Murrison: The Minister will be aware that there is a wide range of retirement ages in the agencies and the
  1008
  Department for which he has responsibility. Will he comment on that? Is it the result of personal choice or departmental expediency? How will the forthcoming EU directive on equal treatment affect his Department's policy?
  Alun Michael: We seek to provide choice for people. We also want to ensure that people are in post who are able to provide the standard of service that the public expect. We have changed our recruitment policy to include those over the age of 60. However, everyone remains subject to the current maximum retirement age of 65. Flexibility and ensuring that we have the staff available to serve the public is the balanced approach that we take.

Speaker's Statement
12.30 pm
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the business questions, I have a statement to make.
Hon. Members have raised with me their concerns that the substance of ministerial statements has been reported in the media before being presented to this House. Particular reference was made to the Defence Secretary's statement on "Iraq: Further Contingency Preparations" on 20 January and the Education and Skills Secretary's statement on "The Future of Higher Education" on 22 January.
I have made it clear, both from this Chair and in meetings with Ministers, that it is of fundamental importance for the proper functioning of Parliament that this House is the first to hear of important developments in Government policy. I recognise the pressures and difficulties that often face Ministers as a result of press speculation about forthcoming statements. My impression, nevertheless, is that in general Ministers recognise and comply with the convention that I have enunciated.
As regards the two recent statements referred to, I have taken the matter up with the Ministers concerned. So far as the statement on Iraq is concerned, I have received an assurance that neither Defence Ministers nor officials trailed its content with the media. This assurance is supported by the fact that the advance reports in the media contained significant inaccuracies and seriously underestimated the strength of the forces being deployed.
As to the statement on higher education, the Secretary of State has represented to me that the majority of the proposals in the White Paper and the package as a whole received their first airing in the House. He has, however, acknowledged that, in order to ensure that the very many people who would be affected by his proposals on student funding would not be alarmed or misled by speculative stories in the media, he said more than he would have wanted in response to a direct question on television before making his statement. He has expressed his regret about this in a letter to me and has made clear his acceptance of the need to come first to the House.
I propose to leave the matter there.

Business of the House
12.33 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House give the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 3 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the European Parliament (Representation) Bill.
TUESDAY 4 FEBRUARY—Consideration of the First Report Session 2002–03 (HC 171) from the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform.
WEDNESDAY 5 FEBRUARY—Motion On the Police Grant report (England and Wales) 2003/2004.
Motions on the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2003/2004 and the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2001/2002: Amending Report 2003.
THURSDAY 6 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
FRIDAY 7 FEBRUARY—Private Members Bill.
The provisional business for the week after will be:
MONDAY 10 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 11 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the National Minimum Wage (Enforcement Notices) Bill [Lords]. Followed by motion to take note of various European documents relating to Agenda 2000 and operation of milk quotas.
WEDNESDAY 12 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day (4th, 2nd Part). There will be a half-day debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced. Followed by proceedings on the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Bill. Followed by motion to approve the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) Order 2003.
THURSDAY 13 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Industrial Development (Financial Assistance) Bill.
FRIDAY 14 FEBRUARY—The House will not be sitting.
In the subsequent week, we will take the constituency week.
Mr. Forth: I am, as ever, grateful to the Leader of the House for giving us the business.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Treasury Select Committee said in its report of 16 January:
"It would be helpful for the Chancellor to announce the date of the Budget as far in advance as possible (at least two months)"?
That has not happened yet. I rather hope that the Leader of the House may tell us something today about the date of the Budget. What is going wrong? Why have we not been told about the Budget? Is it because the Chancellor is worried that the economy is running into rather choppy waters and is not happy about what he might say? Can the Leader of the House please help us in this matter? If the Treasury Select Committee says that it believes that we should receive proper notice of the Budget, I hope that the Government will pay some attention. Time is already effectively running out.

1011
In the context of the Budget, can the Leader of the House give the Deputy Prime Minister an opportunity to come to the House again to clarify what he said the other day:
"On the cost of the dispute, I told the Select Committee that I thought that it was about £5 million, although there are other estimates. However, it is probably something like £1 million a day, but we have to pay more if we are using troops during the dispute, so it may well be £2 million a day. There are negotiations between different Departments, and various costs are involved, so I hope that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that I cannot be precise. However, I have said that the net cost to the Department is £70 million; if other Departments are included, it is about £100 million, which is a considerable sum"? [Official Report, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 723.]
I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister was trying to be helpful to the House, but it would be even more helpful if he were properly briefed and then returned to the House to tell us what the devil that all meant.
You have just stated yet again, Mr. Speaker, your firmly held views on Ministers allowing information to get out into the public domain before Ministers come to the House. Yet again it has happened today. I heard on my radio this morning in some detail what was going to happen about the aircraft carrier statement this afternoon. I heard talk of 2,000 jobs. I heard talk of 10,000 jobs being saved. I heard specific references to shipyards. I heard that this very important contract would be divided between BAE and Thales.
I suppose that the Leader of the House will tell me that that is all idle speculation, and that somehow it was nothing to do with Ministers. But the sad truth is, Mr. Speaker, that in spite of what you have said repeatedly, this is happening over and over again, and it is the Ministry of Defence that is doing it on nearly every occasion. I hope that the Leader of the House will tell us what on earth he or the Prime Minister, or both of them, will do to the Secretary of State for Defence about his disrespect for the House. He is now a recidivist and a serial offender, and it is time something pretty drastic was done about it.
There is a business motion on the Order Paper today which seeks to limit the debate on 4 February in order to allow the House to start voting at 5 pm. I am not sure that I see the point of that. I do not see why we cannot vote at the end of business at 7 pm. We used to do it after 10 pm, after all, so I am not sure why we cannot have our Divisions after 7 pm. We need additional time even more now to clarify just what is going on on the vital issue of the reform of the House of Lords at the highest level of Government.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Common sense has prevailed.
Mr. Forth: On 23 January, at column 441, the Leader of the House said that
"finding common ground with others on where the best compromise can be found with the largest support for the form of the Chamber"
is a priority. He went on to say:
"I would be surprised if that compromise did not require some form of mixed membership."
1012
He went on to say:
"It is not my impression that that White Paper was unpopular because it proposed 20 per cent. elected members; the difficulty with public opinion was in relation to the 80 per cent. appointed. I am doubtful about whether we will remove these anxieties on the part of public opinion by going for 100 per cent. appointed."—[Official Report, 23 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 441.]
You can imagine my surprise when just yesterday, at column 877, the Prime Minister said:
"Do we want an elected House, or do we want an appointed House? I personally think that a hybrid between the two is wrong and will not work."—[Official Report, 29 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 877.]
Hold on a minute—I thought that the Leader of the House said that some form of mixed membership was the most desirable outcome. I am worried about the way in which that matter is progressing or not. At the highest level of government the Prime Minister is saying one thing—[Interruption.] Before Government Members get too excited about the free vote—I am grateful that we are to have such a vote—I remind them that the Labour manifesto in 2001 said:
"We are committed to completing House of Lords reform … to make it more representative and democratic".
I believe that we need more time for next week's debate and that a business motion should not truncate the debate at 5 o'clock because I want to hear the Prime Minister explain how his manifesto commitment to a democratic upper House can be fulfilled by his obvious desire for an appointed upper House—that seems rather difficult to explain. Perhaps the Leader of the House will tell us who is more true to the manifesto—the Prime Minister or him. Finally, to whom should Labour Members now look for guidance on the issue—to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or their conscience?
Mr. Cook: I anticipate that the House will be interested in the last passage quoted by the right hon. Gentleman so, if he will forgive me, I will canter quickly through his other points, which were merely the preamble to that point.
Mr. John Bercow: Eat it slower.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman's advice is always welcome but, on this occasion, I shall disregard it.
On the date of the Budget, nothing has gone wrong. It would be unusual if it had been announced in January. Indeed, may I tell the right hon. Gentleman that so well has the Chancellor of the Exchequer done in managing a sound economy in Britain that we look forward with anticipation to him having a further opportunity to remind the Opposition that we have the lowest unemployment in Europe, the lowest inflation for 40 years and the highest growth rate of the G7 countries.
On the comments about the cost of the fire dispute, I would not have thought that there would be a dispute between the two Front Benches about the fact that the fire dispute necessarily costs a considerable sum of money. I myself have repeatedly heard the Deputy Prime Minister refer to a sum of about £100 million so far. All Members should bear in mind the fact that that £100 million is coming out of other parts of the Deputy Prime Minister's budget, at the expense of regeneration

1013
budgets, expenditure in deprived communities and people who are not well-placed to pay in return for the continuation of the dispute. I therefore hope that the Opposition agree with us that it is best to resolve the matter as quickly as possible and get a solution to the dispute.
On the issue of ministerial statements, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we live in a free country and that this is the real world. In a procurement decision, there will be lots of people, including those in industry, not just in the Department, who know what is going on. There is sometimes humbug from members of the press who complain that they are being leaked to, as they themselves tour Britain, breaking legs if necessary, to get advance notice of an announcement. I fully understand the importance of Ministers making the announcement of policy first in the House. I welcome the fact that in his statement Mr. Speaker has just said that he believes that Ministers should seek to comply with that, and I assure the House that I shall do all that I can to reinforce that message.
On the last matter that the right hon. Gentleman raised—which, I must confess, I had anticipated would come higher in his order of priorities in the questions that he put to me—my understanding is that the Prime Minister will not be able to join us on Tuesday. That is no doubt a matter of great disappointment to the Opposition as it is to me, but as the Prime Minister said yesterday, it is a free vote. As he correctly identified yesterday, there are a range of views on the matter. The right hon. Gentleman is correct: my own view is that what went wrong with the last White Paper was that the figure of 20 per cent. elected did not command public confidence, nor, as far as I could see, would it have commanded a majority in the House of Commons.
It is my personal and very humble opinion that by removing the 20 per cent. elected element and substituting zero, we will not restore the public confidence that was missing the first time round. I fully agree with the Prime Minister that we do not want a second Chamber that is a rival to this place. We want a second Chamber that is a partner to this place in restoring respect for Parliament and making sure that we command the nation's attention when we speak. To have a partner who can assist us in the task of restoring the standing of Parliament, we need a second Chamber that is legitimate, and as our manifesto correctly identified, to be legitimate in the modern era, it needs to be democratic. To be democratic, some, at least, of its Members need to be elected.
Mr. Paul Tyler: It's the way he tells 'em. On this serious issue, we look to the Leader of the House to robustly defend the House, parliamentary democracy and the freedom to speak our minds. Will he therefore dissociate himself from the way in which the Lord Chancellor and some of his other noble Friends have been referring with such disdain—even with contempt—to the whole process of election to this place? Since the noble Lord, as far as I am aware, has never been elected to anything, will the Leader of the House indicate that he, at least, respects the democratic process, and believes that a democratic mandate and a mandate at a general election are important?
No doubt some will take notice of the fact that the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor are attempting to muzzle Labour MPs and peers, but does the Leader
1014
of the House accept that it is wrong, as is suggested in a report today, that they also wish to direct what will happen after the vote next week, as regards the work of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform? Whatever the vote on an indicative Division next week in both Houses, is it his intention to ensure that the Joint Committee will continue its work and will be given an opportunity to fulfil the instructions that it has previously had from the House and from the other place? Surely he must be prepared to defend us against those, be they every so mighty, who wish to undermine the work of Joint Committees?
Finally, has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that this morning, the former leader of his party, Mr. Neil Kinnock, has come out in favour of compulsory voting, in a desperate attempt to increase turnout? Will he take time, please, today to read the report of the debate in Westminster Hall on Tuesday, when the matter was discussed. A number of Members, including some notable and distinguished members of his own party, stated that the only way to increase turnout is to ensure that people's votes count and have an impact on the result. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore take note of the fact that fairer voting means a better turnout in elections?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for trailing his coat in the last question, but right now, if he will forgive me, I have enough battles to fight.
May I clarify the position in relation to the Joint Committee, as there seems to be some confusion about that? We have passed a resolution setting up the Joint Committee. That resolution sets out a remit and a mandate for the Joint Committee to prepare detailed proposals for the House on a second Chamber. As a staging post in that process, we invited the Joint Committee to give us options for the possible composition, and it is on those options that we will vote next week. But the Joint Committee has not fulfilled its remit or its mandate. It needs no fresh remit or mandate to meet again to consider the votes in the House and how those might guide its future work. Indeed, to prevent it from doing so would require a fresh motion of this place, so I see no interruption to the work of the Joint Committee from the votes next Tuesday, and I hope that it will meet rapidly afterwards and assess the way forward.
The hon. Gentleman makes the point that the Lord Chancellor is not elected. That may be so, but I have never been in any doubt of his confidence that, if he submitted himself to an election, he would be returned. I would disagree with the hon. Gentleman on his observation that the debate in the House of Lords showed contempt for those who are elected. From reading the speeches, I felt that the emotion was rather more one of fear than contempt. I was very struck by the number of Members of the other place who said that they must not let in any elected representatives because even a few would swell in number until they took over the whole place. That seems to be recognition of the greater legitimacy and authority that comes from elections, and is not a case for resisting the principle.
Alan Simpson: In relation to freedom of speech, will the Leader of the House arrange a statement on arrangements for the national anti-war

1015
rally in London on 15 February? At the moment, it appears that there are to be no speakers allowed and no rally in Hyde park. That would be as outrageous and unacceptable as it would be incomprehensible to those who believe in freedom of speech, and would provoke acts of civil disobedience which all of us would deeply regret. In order to prevent any further Talibanisation of our democracy, will my right hon. Friend assure us that that rally will go ahead and that members of the public who oppose war in Iraq have the right to say so?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point; I fully understand his concern. I know of his deep concern for the environment, and therefore put to him that the concern that has been expressed by Royal Parks police and others relates entirely to the fact that they do not allow rallies in the royal parks during the winter months when the ground is soft. We have had record rainfall over the past few months. If 400,000 people were admitted to Hyde park, that would have a significant impact.
Indeed, several other bodies, including the Countryside Alliance—this shows the impartiality of the Royal Parks constabulary on this matter—have been refused permission for rallies in the park during the winter months. There is no problem whatever with such an organisation having a rally in the park when the ground is firmer following the spring. In the meantime, I encourage those who wish to make their point to do so by finding a place where there is firmer ground under their feet than that in Hyde park.
Mr. George Osborne: The conviction of my former constituent Sally Clark for the murder of her two children must rank as one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in recent times. Will the Leader of the House confirm that there will be an urgent inquiry into how the Crown Prosecution Service handled that case, and into the behaviour of the Home Office pathologist? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there needs to be a broader look at the way in which the criminal justice system handles the cases of mothers who are accused of murdering their very young children, particularly given the uncertainty surrounding medical evidence of the death of infants? May we have a parliamentary opportunity to discuss such matters?
Mr. Cook: I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's concern on behalf of his constituent. I should think that the whole House would share his concern over what must have been an appalling ordeal for both her and her family. Plainly, lessons will need to be learned and absorbed by a number of different agencies—obviously the Crown Prosecution Service for one, as well as the police and the forensic service. It would be unhelpful for the Government to seek to respond in the 24 hours immediately after the decision, but I am aware that several bodies have said that they will be following up the case and examining it closely. Plainly, this matter cannot rest with yesterday's decision. It must be followed through so that we can ensure that there can never again be such a peradventure of justice.
David Taylor: As an accountant, I welcomed yesterday's announcement by
1016
the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on a tougher regulatory regime of independence, objectivity and integrity. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether the Secretary of State has asked for parliamentary time next week to explain whether that tougher new approach will extend to those accountancy firms that are stitching up the taxpayer by sitting on advisory bodies on private finance initiatives, advising bidders, selecting tenders and writing apparently independent reports on what a good thing PFI is? Should we not have a widespread, independent review of that expensive farce, particularly in the light of reports such as yesterday's on the Lord Chancellor's expensive mistake with Libra?
Mr. Cook: I think that it would be unwise to comment on that last point. To respond to my hon. Friend's general comments, I fully share his welcome for the statement made from the Dispatch Box by my right hon. Friend on the improved standards of accountancy and independence of audit. In the wake of the Enron scandal, all of us would agree that it is important that we should do everything possible in the United Kingdom to ensure that audit is independent and accountancy is of a high standard of integrity. I note what my hon. Friend says about potential conflicts of interest, and I shall certainly draw them to my right hon. Friend's attention. It is important that we ensure not only that there is no conflict of interest but that there can be no suspicion or accusation of it.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement on Stormontgate before the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill is debated in the House? We have been waiting for that statement for some time. We understand that it has been available, and we expected it to be made much earlier.
Mr. Cook: I cannot commit myself to a statement before that debate. I fully understand the interests of the hon. Gentleman and his constituents on this issue, and I am well aware of how important it is in Northern Ireland. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be conscious of that interest when he addresses the House next week.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, for next Tuesday's vote on the House of Lords to be truly comprehensive and reflect all views, the early-day motion calling for the abolition of the House of Lords that has been signed by well over 100 of us should be put to the House, perhaps at the beginning of the debate, to see whether we can get a majority to ensure that the democratic processes are carried out totally and in full?
Mr. Cook: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I want to ensure that the House has the best possible opportunity to express the range of views in it. I have two difficulties that I invite my hon. Friend to understand and share. The first is that both he and I fought the election on a manifesto that committed us to reforming the second Chamber, not to abolishing it. Indeed, I might be making some animadversion to that in Tuesday's debate. Precisely because I do not wish to take away any part of the force of any phrase in the manifesto, it would not be helpful for me at this stage to commit myself to abolishing the second Chamber.

1017
Secondly, we set up the Joint Committee in order that it might make proposals to the House on the options, and I shall be putting those seven options to the House on Tuesday. It would be improper of me to interfere with the options that it has put to the House. All I would say to those Members who favour abolition is that they should be careful when they consider which option to vote for on Tuesday that they are not misled into voting for one that was sold to them on a basis other than abolition. Anybody who votes on Tuesday for an all-appointed House may wake up on Wednesday and find that that is what they will get.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: May I reinforce the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) when he asked the Leader of the House to extend the time for debate on Tuesday to 7 o'clock? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us wish to express our support for a wholly elected House of Lords? Does he understand that we want to express our deep disappointment at the Prime Minister's betrayal of his manifesto commitment? Does the Leader of the House also understand that we want to support him in his dispute with the Lord Chancellor on democracy? We wish to make the point that the Lord Chancellor has never been elected to any political office and that he owes his present position in Parliament to his close friendship with the Prime Minister.
Mr. Cook: I am of course always grateful for support, but sometimes one should accept it with a degree of caution and self-preservation. On the question of the length of the debate, I remind the House that we have had a full day's debate on the matter in the recent past and many days of debate on it over the past few years. It is not my impression that anybody's mind will be changed by another two hours of debate on Tuesday.
Mr. Jim Marshall: May I say to my right hon. Friend as a friend of long standing that I shall start to fear for his future unless he begins to control his sense of irony and does not play to the Opposition gallery too readily, as he appears to be doing?
On a more substantive point, is my right hon. Friend aware that the implementation of section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 is causing a great many problems? Will he look into the problem, particularly in relation to single people arriving in the United Kingdom who fail to claim asylum immediately? Will he arrange for an urgent debate, or failing that, will he urge the Home Secretary to come to the House and make a statement on the issue, so that we can question him about it more closely than we have been able to do hitherto?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his concern. He and I were elected on the same day and are among the few hon. Members left who were elected on that occasion. My observations on the House of Lords are based on views that are well known to the House and are of long standing. In the context of a free vote and having a range of views, I shall continue to stand by that position.
My hon. Friend raises an issue that has been explored in the House in the past, especially in the context of the recent Bill. I understand the difficulty arising from
1018
individual cases that are brought to the attention of hon. Members in a constituency capacity. It is difficult for us to write Acts of Parliament that necessarily apply universally, but cater for all the different circumstances and individual cases that will come to us as constituency Members. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of the Home Office. Although I do not wish to hold out the prospect of an immediate statement, I am sure that we will return to the issue on a number of occasions in this Session.
Mr. Robert Key: Please can we have an early debate on the role of the Lord Chancellor in the setting of rules of evidence in criminal cases? The release of Sally Clark caused great rejoicing in Salisbury, where she grew up as a child, but it comes as no surprise. Our hearts go out to her wonderful family and her father, who is still a constituent of mine. However, my constituent Angela Cannings is still in prison having been convicted in very similar circumstances, and five similar cases are ongoing. The Leader of the House says that he hopes that the same thing will never happen again, but it will do so as long as we allow juries to convict on the basis not of evidence, but of the controversial opinions and theories of so-called medical experts. That is against natural justice.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman will understand why it would be inappropriate for me to comment on any other individual cases in the present circumstances, but I understand what he says about the evidence given by forensic experts. I am sure that, in the light of the recent decision on Sally Clark, there will necessarily be a review to ensure high standards of integrity, openness and transparency in forensic evidence.
I should like to add one caution: I think that it would be a mistake to encourage the view that there are widespread or general miscarriages of justice in the British courts. Undoubtedly, there are individual circumstances in which things go wrong, and we should vigorously pursue such problems, put them right when we find them and seek to learn any lessons. However, that should not be taken as calling into question the great mass of decisions that are reached in our courts.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: May I bring the Leader of the House back to the rally that is due to be held on 15 February? He will be well aware that it is part of a worldwide protest against George Bush's war for oil in Iraq and that people do not understand why the Government are suggesting at this late stage that preventing the spoiling of grass in Hyde park is a more worthwhile cause than saving the lives of thousands of Iraqi civilians.
Mr. Cook: This is not a Government decision; we have expressed no view on the matter and sought to exert no influence. It is entirely a matter for the Royal Parks. Nor is it a new decision by the Royal Parks, which have a long-standing policy not to permit major rallies in the winter months when the ground will not be firm. I fully understand the importance of members of the public having the opportunity to express their views

1019
and I would be the last person to stand in the way of their doing so. I urge my hon. Friend and those organising the rally to find other opportunities.
Sir Patrick Cormack: If the Leader of the House is truly concerned about the reputation of this place and having an effective Parliament, will he allow us an early opportunity to vote again on these ridiculous new hours, which are undermining the work of Parliament? Is he aware that there are hon. Members in all parts of the House, including some who voted for the changes, who share that view?
Mr. Cook: The House voted on those matters, as the hon. Gentleman says. It did so on the basis of free will and a free vote, and it came to a considered view. Only three weeks have passed since the arrangements took effect and I think that it is far too soon to reach any mature judgment. However, it is not my impression that the decision would be reversed if we were to put it to a vote again.
Andrew Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the answer that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? There seemed in his reply to be a slight tension between reminding Labour Members of our manifesto commitment and emphasising the idea of a free vote. We had no opportunity to vote last week and we will not have an opportunity to vote for abolition in the coming week. If he could find a way of allowing us to have a vote on abolition and to express our views, he might then find that one or two of us are prepared to accept as a second best one of the many proposals that are due to be considered next week, even though they are pretty feeble.
Mr. Cook: I hear what my hon. Friend says. Of course, I often reflect on many of the answers that I have given in respect of the business statement, and I am happy to reflect on the one to which he refers. However, it would be false of me to suggest to the House that, at this late stage of proceedings, I see much prospect of adding any more options to the seven that will be put before the House. We set up the Joint Committee on the basis of a decision taken by this House. Indeed, my impression at the time was that it was warmly welcomed. To be honest, I am not aware of any submission made to the Joint Committee suggesting that it should consider abolition, and nor was such a proposal within the remit that the House approved. The seven options before us necessarily flow from that process. At this stage, I do not see much prospect of my succeeding in the task on which he invites me to embark.
We have a stark choice that we must face up to. If we want a legitimate second Chamber to work as a partner with us, it must have a democratic mandate and the authority that goes with it. If we are not prepared to accept that, I do not resile from the proposal that my hon. Friend puts to me: if we are not prepared to do it, we should perhaps be honest and recognise that the consequence is not to have a second Chamber.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Leader of the House accept that it is totally wrong to
1020
deal with a matter as important as assistance to fishing communities by means of a written statement, when the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs knew full well that no fishing question had emerged high in the ballot today? The questions that fishing constituents want answered are clear: why was there no access to European funding, which means that that money is now available to build up other European industries while ours is being run down, and why was there no new Treasury money, which means that the Department's existing budgets are heavily constrained? Why can the Government find so much to prepare for war in the Gulf, but so little to help our fishing communities in a time of crisis?
Mr. Cook: I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have debated fisheries policy on several occasions, including, I think, as recently as last week. I am advised that there are no other available EU grants for fishing, and we are certainly not aware of any potential source to which we are not applying. On the question of fresh money, I point out to him that, on top of the £85 million already allocated for the fishing industry for the next three years, an additional £60 million has been forthcoming. Those are not inconsiderable sums and there are other hon. Members with industries of their own in trouble who would have welcomed that support.
Mr. Iain Luke: Once my right hon. Friend gets a chance to read the Strategic Rail Authority's updated strategic plan for the next 10 years, I am sure that he will view it with concern, given that, like me, he represents a constituency distant from the House. The scaling down of targets and emphasis on the west coast line mean that the hope for improvements up and down the east coast main line will be pushed back. As I serve the distant community of Dundee, I am very concerned, like many others from the north-east, because improvements are not even a distant prospect. Will he hold an emergency debate on the proposals, so that hon. Members can discuss issues relating to investment in the east coast main line?
Mr. Cook: I fully understand the interest of many hon. Members in the impact of the strategic rail plan on their constituencies and towns. The important point on which we can all agree is that investment in the railway industry is at its highest ever and that we must ensure that that is sustained throughout the entire period covered by the 10-year plan. I understand that my hon. Friend is perfectly reasonably concerned about the east coast main line. Indeed, I share that interest as a Member representing a Lothian constituency. However, it is important to us all that we get the west coast main line right and that the SRA succeeds in the objective that it has set itself of ensuring that the rail industry brings costs under control.
Mr. David Cameron: As a keen follower of the turf, will the Leader of the House join me in condemning the Government's wholly ludicrous plans for compulsory passports for every horse, donkey and pony in the country? Does he agree that that has nothing to do with animal welfare and everything to do with bureaucracy originally imposed in Brussels? Can he find any purpose in it, or any mischief that it is trying to

1021
overcome, apart from the fact that the French like eating horses and do not want drugs to enter the food chain? Can we have an urgent debate in the House about the Government's plans so that those of us who want to maintain the status quo—I hope that he will join me in that—can try to convince the Government of our case?
Mr. Cook: I must declare an interest as a trustee of the British Horse Society, which has an excellent scheme to assist its members in providing appropriate horse passports in response to the directive. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the many people in Britain who purchase horses and ponies find it valuable to be able to have confidence in what they are buying and to know the history of the horse.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Knowing that my right hon. Friend is a passionate opponent of ageism—a passion that seems to increase as the years go by—will he soon allow a debate on the so-called National Institute for Clinical Excellence, specifically on early-day motion 316, which deals with age-related macular degeneration and the possibility that some people will be allowed to go blind simply because they are regarded as being too old?
[That this House believes that people suffering with wet age-related macular degeneration are entitled to full access to treatment that could prevent them from losing their sight; is aware that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has recently issued provisional recommendations that photodynamic therapy be withheld from many people with age-related macular degeneration; notes that, if accepted, these recommendations will lead to approximately 5,000 people each year suffering from predominantly classic wet age-related macular degeneration having treatment withheld; and calls upon the Government not to agree to these views, but instead to support wider access to photodynamic therapy for all age-related macular degeneration sufferers.]
Mr. Cook: I entirely share my hon. Friend's view that the older I get, the more passionate I become about ageism. We have gone well out of our way to ensure that we have a national health service that treats all patients equally and thus treats it elderly patients fairly. I would deprecate the view that because one is older one should get a lesser standard of care, although we have to be realistic in recognising that, as people get older, there is sometimes less that medical science can usefully do to intervene. However, I assure him that the broad principle that nobody should be discriminated against on the ground of age is correct.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: May I refer to the business for next Wednesday, namely the allocation of resources to the police and to local government? Is the Leader of the House aware that that is important to every Member of this House? Although the top figure for the additional resources appears encouraging, most Conservative areas are being very badly dealt with, my borough of Macclesfield in particular. Had not a floor been put in the figures, Macclesfield would be getting below what the Government believe they should be getting. The time allocated next Wednesday is inadequate for all Members to express a view, so will the
1022
Leader of the House provide a longer debate? If he cannot, will he ensure that no statement takes place on that day?
Mr. Cook: I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman accepts that our proposed figures are encouraging. Indeed, police numbers are at a record level. I assure him and his constituents that there is nothing in the formula, and nothing in the Government's approach, that provides for political discrimination against areas because of their political affiliation. We have provided three hours for the debate on that day. I always weigh very carefully an application for a statement against the House's need to proceed with its business. In fact, I am often pressed in business questions to provide for more, not fewer, statements.
Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: Will my right hon. Friend consider finding time for a debate on the conditions in which young offenders are kept in adult prisons? Following the suicide in April 2001 of my constituent Daniel Curnock, who was 17 years old, a decision was made not to allow young offenders to be kept in Gloucester prison. That decision was subsequently reversed owing to capacity problems affecting surrounding prisons. Many issues relating to young offenders in adult prisons need to be tackled, and that could be done in such a debate.
Mr. Cook: I hear with interest what my hon. Friend says. I am sure that the whole House would wish to express its concern and shares his anxieties about young people who are detained and feel driven to suicide for whatever cause. I regret that it has been necessary to put young offenders in a prison that he describes as having been considered inappropriate. As he will be aware, we face substantial demand and pressure in relation to the prison population, which necessarily results in decisions that we would otherwise not wish to have made. I shall draw his observations to the attention of the Home Secretary, and I am sure that they will be taken into account in any future allocations to prisons.
Mr. Paul Burstow: May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 431, which addresses the serious issue of reducing child deaths from abuse and neglect.
[That this House believes that the numbers of children in this country who die through abuse and neglect is unacceptable and that public policy has failed to reduce the level of child deaths over the last 30 years; is concerned that the Chief Inspector of Social Services records in her eleventh annual report that three per cent, of children on the child protection register and five per cent, of looked-after children are not allocated a social worker, up to 4,000 children without a safety net; is further concerned that there is no systematic follow-up for child deaths or co-ordinated strategy to reduce child deaths in this country; calls on the Government to place area child protection committees on a statutory footing by placing a duty on all the agencies involved in child protection to participate in the work of the committee and support the local authority in discharging its child protection role; and further calls on the Government to establish an independent Children's Commissioner to promote and protect the rights of all children.]

1023
Given Tuesday's statement on Lord Laming's report into the terrible torture of Victoria Climbie that led to her death, can the Leader of the House find time for a full debate on the findings and 108 recommendations contained in that report, so that Members on both sides of the House can express their opinions, and especially, for many of us, our support for a children's commissioner for England?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman raises a serious and troubling issue. I am pleased that we have already committed ourselves to implementing 82 of the 108 recommendations in the Laming report, which is not a bad scorecard. We have also committed ourselves to a Green Paper on child protection, which will explore some of the report's more strategic and longer-term recommendations. I fully understand that hon. Members will want other opportunities to discuss the matter and to examine Ministers on it, but I suggest that the best time to do that is when we have the Green Paper.
Glenda Jackson: When will he House be afforded the opportunity to make true the Prime Minister's reply yesterday that decisions on committing British troops
"are taken by our Government, our House of Commons, and our country"—[Official Report, 29 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 872.]
by having a full day's debate, in Government time, with a substantive motion, on the issue of what seems increasingly to be an illegal and immoral war in Iraq? Will the Leader of the House further ensure that such a debate is not eroded by the introduction of ministerial statements, as in the past three debates on Iraq, which reduces the time that Back Benchers have to raise their constituents' justifiable concerns?
Mr. Cook: I am well aware of the interest in Iraq on both sides of the House. I am also very conscious that it is important for the Government, in responding to that, to provide adequate time for the House to debate the issue. In fairness to the Government, we have provided opportunities to examine the issue, and, indeed, a substantive motion for the House to vote upon. On that occasion, the House voted by a very large majority to support the strategy that the Government are pursuing through the United Nations. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall return to the House at all future stages, and I imagine that there will be other occasions on which the House will have an opportunity to vote on the matter.
Bob Spink: Being remarkably well informed, the Leader of the House will know that tomorrow evening is the 50th anniversary of the 1953 floods that devastated many communities across the south-east and caused 59 residents of Canvey Island to lose their lives. Will he join me in paying respects to those victims of the flood and to those who showed so much courage on that night in rescuing people and animals? Can he find time for a debate on ensuring that flood defences are substantial enough to prevent any further devastation, bearing in mind rising sea levels?
Mr. Cook: Of course, we are fully aware of the importance of flood defences. The hon. Gentleman,
1024
who is a fair-minded Member, will acknowledge that we have put substantial additional investment into that. We were pleased that, during the recent floods, the numbers who were inundated were fewer than on the previous occasion. Having said that, I fully understand the importance in his constituency of remembering what happened 50 years ago, and am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing to his constituents, through him, our concern and dismay at what happened and our understanding of the emotions that it must give rise to.
Andrew Mackinlay: Does the Leader of the House recollect that, in the 25 years when he was not a Minister, he skilfully tabled thousands of named day questions? Is not it paradoxical that, now he is Leader of the House, we are being restricted to five named day questions a day? That removes an item from the Back-Bench Members' toolbox. Can we review that decision?
Secondly, will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking on the Government's behalf that, when Departments ignore questions that do not have a named day, they at least provide a holding reply after 10 days rather than the abuse that we get, especially from the Northern Ireland Office? Some Departments simply ignore questions and hope that the issue will go away. Such questions are neglected not for weeks but for months.
Mr. Cook: I shall take up my hon. Friend's last point with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend gives me more credit than I deserve. The generation of those who were elected in the 1970s did not ask anything remotely approaching the number of questions that is now normal in any week in the House of Commons.
Andrew Mackinlay: Why not?
Mr. Cook: That is a fair question, which I shall attempt to answer in my memoirs. I shall confine myself today to the present. Since the previous general election, we have faced a sharp increase in the number of questions, even compared with the record number in the previous Parliament. It is striking that half the questions that are tabled are regarded as urgent questions for reply on a named day. The Procedure Committee endorsed that in its interesting recent report on the subject. We have accepted the Committee's proposal, which places no restriction on the number of questions that hon. Members may ask, but suggests that it is difficult to believe that any hon. Member would require five urgent questions in a day.
Sir George Young: Reverting to Tuesday's debate on the House of Lords, did not the Prime Minister do something far more serious yesterday than potentially undermine the legitimacy of the second Chamber? By seeking a clear mandate for a more democratic House of Lords and trying to renege on his contract with the electorate, has not he undermined democracy in the primary Chamber of Parliament?
Mr. Cook: I do not believe that there could be a more democratic process than giving the House of Commons,

1025
which represents the nation, a free vote on what it considers the right option. As I have often done, and will do again on Tuesday, I urge hon. Members to seize the opportunity to ensure that we find a centre of gravity that can create momentum for reform.
I agree with the Prime Minister that we should seek a constitutional settlement that will last for a long time, not only one Parliament or a short time. I doubt whether any reform that is not a democratic solution will have the legitimacy to stand the test of time.
Llew Smith: The Leader of the House knows that I raised QinetiQ in business questions on 9 and 16 January and in early-day motion 531.
[That this House disapproves of the proposals set out in the Ministry of Defence departmental minute, dated 17th December 2002, to retain in the public sector liabilities amounting to almost £100 million as part of the deal done with the Carlyle Group to sell-off the defence evaluation organisation QinetiQ; believes it is wrong to encumber taxpayers with liabilities while selling off public assets to the private sector; further believes that the method of informing hon. Members by a departmental minute deposited in the parliamentary libraries just two days before the Christmas recess is an insufficiently transparent way of keeping parliament appraised of the sell-off strategy and detailed provision; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Defence to postpone any further action in respect of the QinetiQ sell-off until parliament has had a proper chance to debate the implications.]
Does my right hon. Friend know that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence recently described the process of the sell-off as "deeply repugnant"? As it is likely to cost the taxpayer more than £100 million, is it too much to expect the House to debate the matter?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to the Select Committee's report, which I shall consider with interest and care. However, as I understand it, the £100 million is not a cost but the potential liability, to which few imagine that the Government will be exposed. I pursued the question of process, which my hon. Friend raised on previous occasions, and it is well understood that in future we must ensure that memoranda are placed in the Library at a time that permits 14 sitting days to follow, not when the House is about to go into recess.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order.

Future Aircraft Carrier
1.24 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the future aircraft carrier programme.
The 1998 strategic defence review set out the need to improve the capabilities of our armed forces to meet the challenges of a changing strategic environment. The new chapter to the strategic defence review, which builds on our operational experience since 1998 and takes account of events that followed the 11 September attacks, has reinforced those requirements.
Our maritime forces need the ability to project power still further afield. We have therefore set out our most extensive shipbuilding programme for more than a generation. In the next few years, six Type 45 air defence destroyers, six new amphibious warfare vessels and other essential support ships will enter operational service.
Two new, larger, more versatile aircraft carriers will be central to those new maritime capabilities. They will have a vital role in a wide range of military tasks, from peace support operations to high-intensity war fighting. They will offer a coercive presence that could contribute to conflict prevention and provide a flexible and rapidly deployable base when our forces need to operate without host nation support.
As I announced last September, those ships will carry the world's most advanced stealthy and supersonic jump jets—the United States-United Kingdom project for the joint strike fighter. At the same time, I announced that we had chosen an adaptable design for the carriers, which will allow us to make best use of the ships over their projected life of more than 50 years. Both decisions show the Government's determination to equip our armed forces with the capabilities that they need.
The programme is massive and technically challenging, with the two ships alone costing around £3 billion. It will provide employment for up to 10,000 people throughout the United Kingdom. The warships will be the largest and most powerful vessels ever produced for the Royal Navy. At around 60,000 tonnes, they are approximately three times the size of our current carriers. They will rank alongside the most formidable and complex weapons systems deployed by any country anywhere in the world.
The competition for the prime contract has been closely run between the two bidders, BAE Systems and Thales UK. Both are to be congratulated on their proposals to deliver the key new capability to our armed forces. Both are major defence suppliers to the Ministry of Defence. They each make an important contribution to the United Kingdom's economy, providing investment and employment in manufacturing and key science and technology areas. Thales UK employs around 12,000 people throughout the United Kingdom, and BAE Systems, including through its joint ventures, employs approximately 51,000.
A competition of such complexity and scale necessarily involves intensive scrutiny of technical specifications, value for money and wider industrial benefits. We have used a continuous assessment process

1027
to evaluate both companies' work and performance. We have assessed their ability to keep to their project schedules and to establish an appropriate relationship with the Ministry of Defence team. That pioneering process has provided us with a wealth of information to help our decision making.
Two key findings emerge. First, both BAE Systems and Thales UK have performed to a very high standard. There is no doubt that competition has led to major benefits and sharpened the performance of both companies. The competition process has produced impressive designs.
Secondly, if the carriers are to enter service on time, both companies would need to augment substantially their available design resources to achieve the necessary maturity before manufacturing can begin.
Our detailed analysis shows that each company has significant strengths. BAE Systems has displayed a sound understanding of the project's complexities in its project management and prime contracting, and has developed a good relationship with all the key shipyards. It also demonstrated the skills that are necessary to integrate the different systems into an effective warship. Thales UK has provided an innovative design that is flexible enough to meet our needs. It has strengths in a number of key areas, including in weapon and defence systems and the interface between the ship, aircraft and flight deck operations.
We have therefore decided that, to deliver value for money and provide the best capability, it is important and, indeed, sensible to exploit all those strengths. We judge that a partnership appears to offer the best means of drawing in the necessary resources and expertise to deliver a programme of such magnitude. We envisage that this alliance will be led by BAE Systems as the preferred prime contractor, with responsibility for project and shipbuilding management. Thales UK will assume a major role as the key supplier of the whole ship design. We foresee that the Ministry of Defence will also take up a formal role in the alliance for those parts of the programme for which we are rightly responsible. That would involve the management of appropriate risk and contingencies and the provision of assets such as suitably trained manpower and the JSF aircraft.
This innovative approach builds on the principles of smart acquisition and the defence industrial policy that was published last October. It will enable us to make the most of the resources and strengths of both companies and the skills and expertise of the Ministry of Defence project team.
Both BAE Systems and Thales UK have indicated their willingness in principle to participate in such an alliance. The approach will be based on proper customer and supplier relationships, working collaboratively to achieve challenging targets. It will be underpinned by a robust contractual arrangement. Risk will be allocated to the party best suited to manage and mitigate that risk and the rewards will be shared so that it is in the interests
1028
of all parties for the programme to succeed. Further work will be required with both companies to establish the detailed contractual arrangements.
Subject to reaching a satisfactory outcome to these negotiations, and with subsequent confidence that the alliance is operating effectively during the final part of the assessment phase, we intend to reach the final investment decision in spring 2004. At that stage, we will place the prime contract and permit the alliance to move into the demonstration and manufacture phase, when the ships will actually be built. We remain fully committed to achieving our declared in-service dates for both ships in 2012 and 2015 respectively.
I anticipate that hon. Members will be particularly interested in the shipbuilding element of the carrier programme. We believe at this stage that the best way forward is for the carriers to be built by a combination of four yards: BAE Systems Marine at Govan, Vosper Thornycroft at Portsmouth, Swan Hunter on Tyneside, and Babcock BES at Rosyth. The involvement of other yards has not been ruled out. The precise arrangements will be the subject of discussions between the alliance and the yards, to determine the best value for money and work load capacity. We anticipate that the engines will be provided by Rolls-Royce. It is clear that the benefits for the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry and its related supplier chain across the country are significant. I can assure hon. Members that, despite recent suggestions to the contrary, the vessels will be designed and built in the United Kingdom.
This vast programme of work should create or sustain up to 10,000 jobs right across the country. It offers a significant opportunity not only for the shipbuilding industry, but for many small and medium-sized companies all around the United Kingdom. For example, the Bath-based company British Maritime Technology has played a key role in developing the Thales UK design. Other companies, such as specialist paint suppliers and engineering firms, will also have the opportunity to engage in the programme as it progresses. Ultimately, hundreds of suppliers right across the United Kingdom will be able to participate.
Today's announcement by the Government is good news for our armed forces and good news for the nation's defence. It demonstrates the Government's support for the British manufacturing industry and for British jobs, and I commend it to the House.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for giving me a copy in advance, but I have to say to him that this is not so much a decision as a fudge. The addition of two full-sized aircraft carriers to the Royal Navy's fleet, along with the introduction of the new joint strike fighter, will represent a huge increase in Britain's ability to project, sustain and protect military force anywhere in the world. So we welcome any progress towards the launch of the new ships, but we fear that this programme is now beset by uncertainty.
First and not least, there is the vexed issue of money. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that the money for those ships will be available without the need to cut other programmes? The armed forces and the equipment budget are already overstretched. It is clear from the forward defence equipment plans that there is

1029
far more on the Government's shopping list than current defence spending levels will support, alongside all of the UK's other defence commitments.
Secondly, the Secretary of State describes his announcement as "innovative", but he is being a little modest. He has not so much announced a decision as the start of a whole new process: the formation of an as yet ill-defined alliance that is entirely unformed and agreed only "in principle". He remains committed to the in-service dates of 2012 and 2015—dates that are long after he is likely to have departed—but if in a year's time his proposed alliance is judged not to be operating successfully, as he put it, where will that leave the Government's programme? The so-called smart procurement policy was meant to avoid the vexed issue of work sharing. This project started out as a clear competition, but has not the Secretary of State bottled out in the past few weeks by unexpectedly deciding to split the work between the two main competitors? Is he not now effectively saying that Thales won the competition, but that British Aerospace is the prime contractor and has to adopt the Thales design?
What is the basis for deciding the split of work, and is it subject to ministerial direction? Will the contract be arbitrated under English or French law, and who will ultimately be responsible for achieving project milestones and holding to budget? Does not this decision artificially to split the contract have very serious implications for the way in which future defence competitions should be conducted? Is it not the truth that the Secretary of State could never have justified awarding the whole project to a French company, given that there is no possibility of the French Government's ever allowing British companies to compete on the same terms in France? Should he not have realised that at the outset, rather than discovering it only now?
We recognise that Thales UK is a major UK investor and employer, and that work placed with it will create British jobs in British factories, but some work will certainly go to France. I merely ask whether the Secretary of State shares the anxiety of many in our defence industries that UK companies simply do not have the same opportunities to buy companies, and to compete in French markets on the same terms. In return for nominating Thales as a "key supplier"—the company is still effectively owned and controlled by the French Government—what is President Chirac giving Britain, except a regular kick in the teeth for the Prime Minister on issues such as agricultural reform, his outrageous invitation to President Mugabe and his determination to split NATO over the issue of Iraq?
Will the Secretary of State now agree that the company to which he periodically refers as "British" Aerospace is in fact a British company? Will there now be an end to the unseemly public criticism of what is Europe's largest defence contractor and one of our biggest industrial employers and export earners, from which he has carelessly wiped millions in stock market value?
This decision raises many questions about the future of defence procurement policy, which the Government will have to address. The final order for those ships is important for British industry and vital for the future of UK defence, but today's announcement by the Government has introduced more risk and more
1030
uncertainty—not just for this project but, by implication, for the entire defence equipment programme.
Mr. Hoon: I am sorry that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who speaks on defence matters on the Opposition's behalf, has yet again come to the House with a litany of anti-European—in this case, anti- French—rhetoric. He has a problem, because if he examines the NATO alliance, he will discover that a significant number of European allies are members of NATO, and we work with them regularly. I know that there are many in the Conservative party who would probably like it to revert to its state before the debate on the corn laws, but unfortunately, when the hon. Gentleman talks about projects for the 21st century, his arguments sound distinctly outdated.
The key question that the hon. Gentleman must answer is what would the Conservative party have done differently from the announcement that has just been made. [Interruption.] In all the hon. Gentleman's rhetorical, anti-European flourishes from the Opposition Front Bench, I heard not a shred of a suggestion as to what exactly he would have done differently. [Interruption.] If he says—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. There is far too much chatter from Front Benchers on both sides of the House. We are trying to hear a reply from the Secretary of State.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
What the hon. Gentleman must say at some stage today—perhaps he will have opportunities other than the one he has just wasted—is whether he would have been prepared to jeopardise this vital programme for our armed forces and the benefits that flow across a range of British industrial expertise, by refusing to take advantage of the strengths of BAE Systems and Thales UK and the various bids that they made. If he is saying that he would choose one bid or the other, he is actually saying that he would rule out of consideration, and exclude from benefit to the UK's armed forces, the considerable expertise that each of those companies would make available. [Interruption.] I can hear mumblings on the Opposition Benches, so obviously in the course of his rambling response, the hon. Gentleman did not make all the points that he wanted to make. I invite him to think carefully about the ways in which such project negotiations are conducted, because if he did so he would see that the proposal set out is very clear, tight and well defined, and is clearly of considerable benefit to United Kingdom manufacturing industry.
Let me comment for the House on just one aspect of the hon. Gentleman's obsessions: the reference to French law. Had he listened carefully, and had he thought for a moment about the benefits to the United Kingdom, he would have recognised, as do many of his hon. Friends, that that was a smear, perpetrated deliberately to arouse the anti-European, anti-French rhetoric that has come to characterise the modern Conservative party. If he does not recognise that that is a disgrace, there are plenty of people on the Benches behind him who do.
Mr. Paul Keetch: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for giving me an advance copy of his

1031
statement. The Liberal Democrats believe that the new carriers that the right hon. Gentleman has announced today are essential to the United Kingdom's future expeditionary strategy. I congratulate him, and the Government, on procuring them.
We firmly believe that it is right for the carriers to be built, but we must be careful about the spin on this. It reminds me of Lewis Carroll, whose Dodo said:
"Everybody has won, and all must have prizes."
We must be sure that the Government can demonstrate that the process has been competitive, not political. In other words, has the alliance turned over the nature of smart procurement?
Will the Secretary of State outline what discussions he has had with his French counterpart about the new French carrier? Does the decision announced today open the possibility of any advantages for the Ministry of Defence in future co-operation and possible future contracts for British companies on that carrier? What discussions has his Department had with the two contractors about the building of a hybrid carrier that could land both conventional carrier aircraft and the STOL—short take-off and landing—aircraft now being suggested? After all, that would ensure that there was proper co-operation with French and American aircraft carriers. Does the decision exclude such a possibility?
Can the Secretary of State confirm—yes or no—that the recommendation from the Defence Procurement Agency was for a single prime contractor? Does not a single contractor represent a single point of control? Who will really run the project? Will it really be BAE Systems? Who will own the rights to the design of the future carrier: BAE or Thales? Can the right hon. Gentleman give a single example of an alliance producing a contract on time and on budget? In short, after a three-year contest, why have the Government decided on such an alliance? If it is such a good idea, why was it not decided on at the start of the contract?
The Liberal Democrats believe that the future carrier programme is essential to our British military future, and we congratulate the Government on fulfilling their obligations under the strategic defence review. I hope that the alliance will work, but it will be for the Secretary of State to demonstrate that that design does not become one of our major overruns.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support—I think. He asked a number of practical questions, and I shall endeavour to deal with them. Overall, I took his response to be supportive; if subsequent textual analysis reveals that I am wrong, I apologise both to him and to the House.
The great advantage of the approach that we are adopting is that we get the best out of a vigorous competitive process. If there is any doubt in anyone's mind about the nature of the competition, they have only to look at the various press reports about it over the past few months. In that competitive process, real advantages have been brought to bear, in terms both of design expertise and, crucially, of allowing the Ministry of Defence to monitor continuously the process that each of the companies has adopted.
1032
That is unlike what happened in previous competitions, when the first that a Department would see of the competition would be the product at the end, and then it would have to take a decision between two or more finished products. We have been able to monitor the way in which each company has approached the competition, which has had benefits for the companies and, I believe, strong benefits for the country. That is why at this stage we are confident that we shall be able to incorporate the best elements of both companies in the alliance approach, while maintaining an interest on behalf of the Government in how they work together. There are other examples of such co-operation. Type 45 will be built in a co-operative way, and that, too, will involve the best expertise that the United Kingdom can bring to bear.
It is not appropriate for me to comment on advice from officials at this stage, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that at every stage there has been absolute agreement within the Ministry of Defence about the best way forward. That has meant that we can be confident in the recommendations that we are making and the decisions that we are announcing to the House today.
As for the hybrid character of the project, I dealt—last September I think—with the proposal that the carrier will be adaptable. It does not make sense at this stage, either militarily or financially, to develop a carrier capable of taking both types of aircraft, but we are ensuring that the carrier could be converted if necessary, given a further generation of strike aircraft, to accommodate a different type of aircraft. That will guarantee the lifetime utility of the platforms that we propose to build.
Several hon. Members rose
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We do not have an indefinite amount of time available for further exchanges on the statement, so I appeal to the House for short, single-part questions and crisp answers.
Mr. Bruce George: I hope that the Secretary of State will not construe any mild criticism of his decision as xenophobia. I hope that the Defence Committee will soon inquire in more detail into the nature of the decision, but what I as an individual ask for now is some reassurance. The Secretary of State said that BAE Systems would be a prime contractor. Will it have the opportunity to choose systems made by BAE, and not simply be a prime contractor but have to choose all Thales systems?
Does the Secretary of State accept that, as Sir Robert Walmsley said, a carrier is just a box? That is the easy bit. The difficult bit is the systems that go in it and on it—and those are the bits that I want some assurances about. I want to be assured that genuinely British companies will have the opportunity of bidding for and winning the contracts for them.
Finally, echoing the words of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), the shadow Defence spokesman, I really hope that this generosity and this alliance will be reciprocated. Otherwise, people will see it in rather more xenophobic terms.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his observations. As he rightly says, it is the weapons

1033
systems incorporated in modern fighting ships that are their key characteristic. I assure him that there will be vigorous competition to ensure that not only do we have the best equipment for our armed forces, but the need to promote and protect vital high-tech industries in the United Kingdom is satisfied.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: I welcome the procurement decision, but I strongly oppose the decision that the Secretary of State has announced to split the contract. I want to support British industry, and I have done so for all of the 32 years that I have been in this place. The French do not have a very good reputation for building large ships. How many jobs has the Secretary of State sacrificed to the French by splitting the contract, rather than giving the order to BAE Systems, whose proposal 1 have strongly supported all along?
Mr. Hoon: The answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is that not a single job has been sacrificed to the French. As I emphasised, unless he and some of his hon. Friends are suggesting that Bath is now somehow part of greater France—
Mr. Don Foster: No.
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is protesting that that cannot possibly be the case, so the design work was concluded well within the territory of the United Kingdom. That will remain the position. However, I know that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) is a strong and consistent supporter of UK industry. I am delighted to have his support for this proposal.
Mr. Alan Campbell: Those of us with an interest in shipbuilding in the north-east and memories of the closure of the Swan Hunter yard some eight years ago will greet the announcement as excellent news for the region. Does my right hon. Friend agree, now that a Labour Government have created this opportunity for the revival of shipbuilding on Tyneside, that it is up to companies and the work force to make the most of it?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I visited Swan Hunter some years ago and recognise the revival that has taken place. Opposition Front-Bench Members may bluster, but the previous Conservative Government did not come to the House once in 18 years to announce the construction of two carriers of this size and type.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I regret that the Harland and Wolff yard was not included in the announcement, but may I welcome the inclusion of four British shipyards, along with Thales? They will contribute to the economy of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for the hon. Member's support. Thales is an important employer in Northern Ireland, where the Ministry of Defence already has a ship under construction. We have played our part in respect of the people there, and want to continue to do so.
Linda Gilroy: In his statement, my right hon. Friend said that the involvement of other
1034
yards, besides the four that he named for building, would not be ruled out. Will he give an assurance that the proposals for certain aspects of design, commissioning and through-life support that were part of the Thales bid by Devonport Management Ltd. are not ruled out? Will they still receive full and fair consideration?
Mr. Hoon: As I said, the benefits of this massive programme will spread right across the UK. I do not rule out any contribution that can be made. Obvious benefits will accrue to certain shipyards as a result of my announcement, but there will also be real benefits across the UK, involving many companies situated far from the sea. It is important that we bear that in mind.
Mr. Mark Hoban: What reassurances can the Secretary of State give to Vosper Thornycroft, which employs many people across south-east Hampshire, about the share of the shipbuilding work that it will get as a result of today's announcement?
Mr. Hoon: Clearly, as must be the case in any event, that remains to be negotiated. However, I am sure that the company, its employees and the people living in the immediate area will be delighted that the yard will be one of those responsible for the massive amount of work that will come to the UK. Following so closely on the work being done on Type 45, this is a very important opportunity for a significant UK employer.
Mr. Frank Field: Thankfully, more than 1.5 million more people are in work than when the Government were first elected. However, that prosperity has not yet spread to all our shipbuilding constituencies. If the tide of joblessness is to be reversed, it is crucial that my area can win some of the subcontracting work. Will my right hon. Friend give some idea of the number of new subcontracting jobs that will be created by his announcement today?
Mr. Hoon: The overall estimate is that some 10,000 jobs will be created or preserved by the announcement. Clearly, there will be significant opportunities in subcontracting, not least in areas of high expertise such as the one represented by my right hon. Friend. We shall monitor that very carefully as the benefits of these decisions spread throughout the UK economy.
Angus Robertson: May I thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of his statement, and welcome the announcement of domestic procurement? Last year, the Ministry of Defence said that, in procurement terms, there was a shortfall to Scottish taxpayers of £670 million. How will priority be given to sourcing work to the Clyde, Rosyth, Greenock and Nigg, which has an outstanding fabrication tradition?
Mr. Hoon: Given the very considerable benefit that will flow to Scotland as a result of an announcement made by a UK Secretary of State for Defence, perhaps the hon. Gentleman should say whether an independent Scotland under the leadership of the Scottish National party would contribute to the programme—or even whether such a country would want to be defended by these ships. The policy of the hon. Gentleman's party is

1035
to take Scotland out of NATO, so I assume that he would abandon any requirement that the ships be used. If so, he should tell the people of Scotland how his party would defend the country in that eventuality.
Tony Worthington: This is a very welcome announcement for Clydeside. It gives the area's shipbuilding industry the biggest boost that anyone can remember, and we must use the opportunity. However, will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State clarify one point? He said that he sees the role of the Ministry of Defence as providing assets such as suitably trained manpower. I hope that that is so, as I do not think that either of the contractors realise how much education and training is needed to rejuvenate the industry. We must make sure that the education and training sectors can meet the challenge being set them.
Mr. Hoon: The matter that my hon. Friend raises has been discussed across Government, and a number of Cabinet colleagues are concerned to ensure that it is resolved in the way that my hon. Friend describes. Clearly, with a project of this kind following so closely the Type 45 announcement, the benefits to Scottish shipyards are obvious and palpable. Equally, however, as those benefits come onstream, we must ensure that we have the right sort of trained personnel to take advantage of what is a significant opportunity. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support, and I shall look to it again as we deal with the challenging tasks ahead.
Richard Ottaway: I welcome the Secretary of State's interim statement, although the crunch statement will come in spring 2004, as I think he said. However, Britain is the world's fourth-largest economy, and it is the nation that built the generation of carriers that included the Eagle, Victorious, Bulwark, Hermes, Invincible, Illustrious and Ark Royal. How have we got ourselves into a situation that means that we have to rely on the expertise of a foreign country to produce the best possible contract? Will the right hon. Gentleman conduct an inquiry into what has gone wrong with our defence industry, to ensure that this embarrassing situation does not arise again?
Mr. Hoon: I shall say this once more, for the hon. Gentleman's benefit. The Bath-based company, British Maritime Technology, played the key role in developing the Thales UK design. It is based in Bath and, as far as I am aware, it employs people from the locality. I am not aware that there is a huge number of people in Bath of French origin or nationality. It would not matter even if there were, as the benefits of that excellent design will still flow to the UK. I am tempted to give the hon. Gentleman a detailed account of the failures of 18 years of Conservative government, when no warship orders on this scale were placed. There were massive cuts in the amount of money spent on defence, and a significant rundown in the equipment available to the UK's armed forces. This Government are having to make good that legacy.
Mr. John Lyons: Any fair-minded hon. Member will welcome my right hon.
1036
Friend's statement. His name will be toasted on the Clyde and elsewhere this evening when the very good news gets out. Rolls-Royce's involvement is important and will be welcomed across the nation. I welcome the proposal to involve a project team. Will my right hon. Friend consider speaking to BAE Systems, which has listed 200 redundancies? It would be great if that threat could be removed and everyone could participate in the work.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's fair-minded support for the project, and for the way in which he has pointed out the wider industrial benefits for Scotland's shipyards, and for companies such as Rolls-Royce that operate in England and Wales as well as Scotland—[HON. MEMBERS: "Northern Ireland."]—and Northern Ireland. The decision will be of real benefit to the United Kingdom and should be welcomed by all Members and by great companies in the UK and their employees.
Mr. Don Foster: I share the Secretary of State's concern that the Conservative tirade against Thales totally ignores the fact that many excellent British businesses were involved in its side of the deal. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his specific reference to the excellent work of British Maritime Technology, which is based in Bath, and assure him that today's announcement will ensure that the company can go forward with bids to do work in other countries as well as in the UK.
Mr. Hoon: That really is a complete answer to the xenophobic nonsense that we have heard from the Conservative Front Bench. We live in an increasingly integrated global economy, and unless Conservative Front Benchers recognise that, rather than sniping constantly at our partners and allies, they will have little future in the 21st century.
David Cairns: When I sat through many briefings from both companies, it was clear to me that each had major strengths. My right hon. Friend has outlined in his statement a creative and imaginative solution.
May I make one specific point? In previous programmes on which there have been overruns, there has been a fault line between those who design the ships and the shipyard management. Is my right hon. Friend completely confident that that major part of the programme will be carefully managed so that those who hold the jobs that will undoubtedly come to the Clyde will create best-quality ships that will in turn attract other orders from overseas?
Mr. Hoon: A key strength of the BAE Systems bid was its relationship with the shipyards and understanding of the problems posed once a project moves from design to manufacture. That is a strength of the company, and one that we identified as part of its contribution to the bid.
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: The House has a habit of saying, "It's good to buy British.- Can the Secretary of State confirm that the propellant for the 800 tonnes of ammunition that the ships will carry is made

1037
by BAE Systems in my constituency, which proposes to move production to America? If buying British is best, will the Secretary of State ensure that the propellant continues to be made in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Hoon: The range of competitive pressures on UK companies clearly leads them to source material from different places. What is important to the UK economy is that they should do so cost-effectively while guaranteeing the supply of equipment—in this case, propellant. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Ministry of Defence pays close regard to that.
Mr. Ian Davidson: As secretary of the all-party shipbuilding and ship repair group, may I say how much that group welcomes today's announcement? The carrier order is probably the biggest boost to British shipbuilding for many decades, and it is particularly welcome coming, as it does, against a background of siren voices of Conservative Members who said that it would never come to pass.
Can the Secretary of State give us an idea how many carriers he thinks would be ordered by the navy of an independent Scotland? People on Clydeside will want to be clear about that when they realise that the jobs announced today have come while we are part of the Union. As we move towards Scottish elections—I make the point not for partisan reasons, but for the sake of public information—it is essential that people realise that.
Given that the Secretary of State has announced a challenging organisational way of moving forward, can he guarantee that there will be no delay in the work, particularly in steel, because men on Clydeside are ready and waiting to start building the ships?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I shall of course not answer him in a partisan way. I must point out that in the role that he ably holds on behalf of the British shipbuilding industry, he last said that I had given British shipbuilding its biggest boost the last time I announced an order, which was the Type 45 order. I am grateful for his consistent observations, and I know that the Government are consistently grateful for his support.
Mr. Davidson: Only when you deserve it.
Mr. Keetch: Not always!
Mr. Hoon: We are always grateful for my hon. Friend's support.
I have already dealt with the points that my hon. Friend made about Scottish nationalist policy. I recognise the SNP's difficulties in sustaining its argument when it comes to defence-related jobs. It is a great privilege to be Secretary of State for Defence for the United Kingdom. and I think that my hon. Friend made his point well enough.
As for delays, I emphasise the need to ensure a mature design before any steel is cut. One reason for past cost overruns has been that steel has sometimes been cut before the design has been properly matured. That is why it is important to hold effective contract
1038
negotiations over the next 12 months in order to secure a proper outcome for employees in and around our great British shipyards and for the Ministry of Defence.
Mr. David Chidgey: Returning to the Secretary of State's comments on the partnership role of the MOD in regard to trained manpower, I am sure that he will be aware that Vosper Thornycroft has headquarters in Eastleigh. In the package that it put forward in the bidding process in partnership with BAE Systems, Vosper Thornycroft offered to provide high-skilled training for 1,000 people over the course of the project. That is vital to the future economy of my constituency and the wider area. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that that part of the BAE Systems proposal remains part of the project?
Mr. Hoon: It would not be right at this stage for me to give specific assurances of that kind. What I can say is that there will be enormous demand for high-skilled employees as a result of our decisions, and Vosper Thornycroft's investment and commitment to the skills of its work force has been enormously impressive as it has taken on a number of challenging contracts that ultimately come from the Ministry of Defence. I have every confidence in the company's ability to deliver on shipbuilding and on the training required for a skilled work force.
Mr. Kevan Jones: I warmly welcome today's announcement, which is good news for the north-east economy and particularly for Swan Hunter on the Tyne, a company that was closed by the Conservative Government but given a bright future by Labour. Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the MOD and contractors work with organisations such as Northern Defence Industries to ensure that the maximum number of small and medium-sized enterprises can obtain work from the massive contract, which will be a great boost to the north-east in general.
Mr. Hoon: I have been in regular correspondence with Northern Defence Industries, which performs a valuable role on behalf of the defence industry and defence companies in the north-east. As one who represents an entirely land-locked constituency, I can say that one of the significant consequences of the announcement is that the benefits clearly available to the north-east and other shipbuilding areas flow right across the United Kingdom.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: The Secretary of State did not point out that a commitment to build two strike carriers appeared in the 1997 Tory manifesto. I am glad that he has caught up with our plans and ambitions.
Why is the Secretary of State withdrawing Sea Harriers before the two strike carriers come into commission? Will that not leave the Royal Navy vulnerable? Would it not be possible to bring forward the in-service dates, given that 2012 is a long way off'? After all, it took the Germans just two years to build Bismarck and the Americans two and a half years to build USS Missouri. I appreciate that those were less sophisticated vessels, but is there any chance of bringing forward the in-service date?
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman unfortunately overlooked the fact that the two huge new carriers will

1039
be equipped with the latest and most technologically advanced stealthy aircraft—the joint strike fighter. I would be more enthusiastic about his questions if, rather than just talking about investment, he had been more enthusiastic about the massive investment that the Government have made.
John Robertson: As the Member of Parliament who represents the Scotstoun yard, I hope that its name was missing from my right hon. Friend's statement only because Govan includes Scotstoun. I welcome the statement with open arms as it is good news for the Clyde and the country as a whole, but I am slightly disappointed that BAE Systems did not win the design part of the contract. In Scotstoun, a magnificent design office has been set up, especially for the Type 45 destroyers. It is an unmitigated success, but with the announcement of 265 job losses last week, I am concerned that there might be problems for that drawing office in years to come.
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend has been a constant champion of the Clyde and has argued long and successfully for precisely the kind of investment that we are now able to make in relation to the Clyde and BAE Systems' role there. I know that my hon. Friend will continue to ensure that his constituents are properly represented in guaranteeing that the kind of work available to them will continue long into the future.
John Thurso: Although I generally welcome the jobs that will be coming to Scotland, may I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the potential of the Nigg yard in Easter Ross? Given that the people of Easter Ross have borne with fortitude the inconvenience of the bombing range at Tain, would it not be a just reward for some of the jobs from the contract to come to Easter Ross, too?
Mr. Hoon: In my statement, I made it clear that the involvement of other yards was not ruled out. I have already pointed out, in response to a question from one of my hon. Friends, that I anticipated a significant amount of subcontract would benefit parts of the UK other than those that I have identified specifically so far. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to make representations in due course.
Andy King: I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. I am extremely concerned on behalf of the 3,000 workers at Alsthom in Rugby, 200 of whom are to be made redundant in March owing to the failure of international contract and who will be greatly relieved that there will be work for the manufacturing industry. As my right hon. Friend said, the contracts relate not only to shipyards but to manufacturing as a whole. How many jobs are there likely to be in the manufacturing industry, especially at Alsthom, which is a major part—supposedly—of the foreign business partnership?
Mr. Hoon: As I have already indicated, we anticipate that about 10,000 jobs will be either created or preserved as a result of the announcement. There will be significant
1040
opportunities for landlocked constituencies such as that of my hon. Friend and indeed mine to benefit from the subcontract work that will flow from these decisions. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend that that is indeed the case for his constituency.
Mr. Mark Francois: Does the Secretary of State agree that the welcome for his statement from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench was a combination of four classic naval commands—full ahead, full astern, abandon ship, and make smoke—all at the same time?
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman about the implications of his announcement for procurement policy? The history of defence procurement under Governments of all colours is littered with examples of projects that went horribly wrong because it was never clear who was actually in charge. How can the Ministry of Defence credibly run future competitions if bidders see that despite all their efforts—and irrespective of the merits of the two bids in this case—Ministers can intervene at the last minute to create what is in effect a shotgun marriage between two different bids?
Mr. Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying so, there might be a fifth naval command that applies to the Conservative party: take to the lifeboats.
As far as—
Mr. Francois: Answer the question.
Mr. Keith Simpson: It was supposed to be a joke—very funny.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for all the applause I can get.
I dealt with the specific question put by the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) in my answer to the Opposition spokesman. By incorporating the best elements of both bids we obtain the best British manufacturing contribution to this excellent British project.
Mr. John Burnett: I foresee that the robust contractual arrangements that the Secretary of State described will provide a rich harvest for the legal profession in due course.
The Secretary of State listed four shipyards where the main sections of the carriers will be built. Will he confirm that all UK shipyards, including Appledore in my constituency, will have a fair opportunity to tender for all subcontract work for the vessels?
Mr. Hoon: Having just answered a similar question from one of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends in relation to a different yard, I can assure him that the same opportunities will be available. I am sure that his former colleagues in the legal profession will welcome the contractual work that the decision offers.
Dr. Vincent Cable: Now that BAE Systems has won this major and lucrative contract, will the company be required to honour outstanding cost overruns on existing contracts, such as the submarines and Nimrod, thereby sending a clear signal to all

1041
partners in the aircraft carrier contract that contractual failure will be penalised and not automatically paid for by the taxpayer?
Mr. Hoon: It has never been suggested that, under existing contracts, the taxpayer will automatically have to fund any cost overrun. Indeed, that is central to the discussions that are being held between the Ministry of Defence and the company concerned. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this contract has been dealt with by both companies in an extremely professional and sophisticated way, and that the United Kingdom should be grateful that there are two companies operating in the country that are capable of producing such outstanding work.

Opposition Day
[4TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Iraq (Humanitarian Contingency Plan)
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I have to inform the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment in the name of the leader of the Liberal Democrats.
  2.16 pm
  Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I beg to move,
  That this House observes the dire humanitarian situation in Iraq resulting from Saddam Hussein's misrule and Iraqi obstruction of humanitarian agencies; notes that more than ten per cent. of all Iraqi children die before their fifth birthday, and that a quarter of children under five are chronically malnourished; further notes the high dependency of Iraqis on Oil for Food programmes; deplores the continued Iraqi disruption of the Oil for Food programme; recognises the serious threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction; understands that military action may follow Iraq's continued violation of its international obligation to disarm and destroy those weapons of mass destruction, contrary to UN Resolution 1441; urges the Secretary of State for International Development to work with the international community urgently to draw up a comprehensive humanitarian strategy for assisting the people of Iraq in the event of war; further urges Her Majesty's Government to ensure that there is close co-operation between the military campaign and the aid effort; and calls on the Secretary of State for International Development to keep Parliament fully informed of the humanitarian situation in Iraq.
  May I begin by drawing the attention of the House to a point that has been made to me by several colleagues? It is extremely difficult at this time of day to attend both the Chamber and Standing Committees whose meetings start at 2.30 pm. Members may not be in the Chamber not because of lack of interest in the subject of our debate, but because they have to be at a Standing Committee meeting in a quarter of an hour's time.
  One of the most serious decisions a Prime Minister will ever have to make is whether to send our troops to war. The announcement last week that we are sending a quarter of our Army to the Gulf, while not making war inevitable, brings it a step closer. Furthermore, Hans Blix's statement to the Security Council this week provides clear evidence of Iraqi non-compliance, which, if it persists, will be met with military force.
  It is understandable that many people are cautious in their support for action against Iraq. Humanitarian aid organisations are warning of the catastrophic impact that war is likely to have on the Iraqi people. The Conservative party is responding to those warnings by initiating this debate: it is the responsible thing to do.
  So far, there has been a worrying silence from the Government on the humanitarian aspects of war against Iraq. It is worth pointing out that we have had no statement from the Secretary of State for International Development on the humanitarian preparations that her Department is making, despite having heard several statements from the Secretary of State for Defence on the military build-up that is taking place, and numerous statements from the Foreign Secretary on the diplomatic steps that he is taking.
  The written answers that hon. Members have received have been oblique and, I must say, generally uninformative. Hon. Members may contrast that silence

  1043
  on the humanitarian effort with the debates held in Parliament after 11 September. Then, Parliament was provided with regular updates on the situation in Afghanistan. The Secretary of State seemed happy to make statements and respond in debates about the actions that she was taking to deliver aid to the Afghan people.
  When Parliament was recalled, the Prime Minister said:
  "the humanitarian coalition to help the people of Afghanistan is as vital as the military action itself."—[Official Report, 4 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 673.]
  During his speech to the Labour party conference, the Prime Minister promised that
  "more than ever now, with every bit as much thought and planning, we will assemble a humanitarian coalition alongside the military coalition."
  During the Afghan campaign, the House debated not debate only the military but the humanitarian strategy. We debated the effectiveness of the international aid effort and how it might be made more effective. We were able to reassure our constituents that we were taking the humanitarian effort seriously and we were able to reassure ordinary Afghans that our conflict was not with them.
  I hope that today's debate will help to bring some balance to our understanding of the situation in Iraq.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend is right to mention Afghanistan. Looking a little further back in time, does she recall that during the Kosovo conflict there was substantial emphasis on the Government putting in place a clear humanitarian strategy?
  Mrs. Spelman: My hon. Friend is right. So far, our preparations for war in Iraq have been in marked contrast to the preparations for both those wars.
  If the wider war on terrorism is to succeed, it is crucial that we do not forfeit vital international support by pursuing a war against Saddam Hussein without a comprehensive humanitarian strategy for helping the innocent Iraqi people.
  Our main concern today is the sustainability of the aid programmes on which the Iraqis depend in the event of a war against Saddam Hussein's regime. When war could be just six weeks away, it is vital that the international community builds a comprehensive strategy for delivering humanitarian aid to the people of Iraq. We seek reassurance from the Secretary of State that there are comprehensive humanitarian contingency plans. Some of the statements that we have heard in recent weeks do not give us confidence that that is the case.
  Let us consider refugees. After the Gulf war, 1.8 million Iraqi refugees went on the move. That is 18 times the number of refugees who fled Afghanistan. On Tuesday, however, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees admitted to BBC News Online that its preparations were in the initial stages and,
  "in terms of scope they are not really on a large scale".
  1044
  Is that really acceptable when war might be a matter of weeks away?
  On 16 December, I asked the Secretary of State what discussions had taken place with Iran, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia—all the countries on Iraq's borders—about their policy of accepting refugees from Iraq. The answer came back, "None." I repeated that question on 27 January and got the same answer. Will the Secretary of State explain why little preparation appears to have been made for coping with an exodus of refugees? There are still 2 million Afghan refugees in Iran.
  Miss Julie Kirkbride: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing an important debate on a subject that needs a public airing—a debate that I hope will encourage Ministers to take more action. She is not ungenerous by nature, but could she help the House by telling us why she thinks the Government have been so laggardly in promoting this other aspect of the fight against terrorism?
  Mrs. Spelman: I am afraid I cannot see into the minds of those on the Government Front Bench. My hon. Friend enables me to observe that although their hearts may well be in the right place in the sense that they want to help the Iraqi people, their seeming obduracy and unwillingness to debate humanitarian strategy could have an adverse morality—working against the very people whom we are all trying to spare unnecessary pain.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Spelman: No, I wish to continue on the subject of refugees.
  After 20 years of civil war in Afghanistan, there are still 2 million Afghan refugees in Iran, which already finds that a difficult burden to bear. Given that almost 1 million Iraqis crossed to Iran during the Gulf war, what support is Iran being provided to prepare for an exodus of refugees? Will Iran be in a position to cope when 900,000 refugees start to head for its border in two months' time? Surely now is the time to prepare for such a large-scale movement of people, not when they are on the move and it is already too late.
  Glenda Jackson: Perhaps the hon. Lady will explain Conservative policy on Iraqi refugees. Would the Conservatives merely dub them potential terrorists and lock them up the minute they arrived in this country, which certainly seems to be their policy in general?
  Mrs. Spelman: This is not a debate for political point scoring; it is on a very serious subject. If the hon. Lady listens to the rest of my speech she will hear our policy. As she knows, we operate under the Geneva convention, by which we have a legal duty to provide a safe haven for genuine refugees. She knows that to be our position.
  As the Secretary of State made clear in her statements to the media—
  Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Spelman: I wish to proceed on the subject of refugees.

  1045
  Iraq is already a desperately poor country and life under Saddam Hussein is appallingly bleak. The country's infrastructure remains damaged after the Iran-Iraq war and the Gulf war. According to the United Nations there are already about 1 million internally displaced people. More than 10 per cent. of all children die before their fifth birthday and a quarter of children are chronically malnourished. Children aged under 14 now comprise almost half of the Iraqi population. The sanitation system has all but collapsed and 60 per cent. of Iraqis—16 million people—depend on monthly food rations. Most Iraqis are now dependent on international aid programmes, a large part of which are funded under the auspices of the United Nations oil-for-food programme. Under Saddam Hussein, the effectiveness of that programme has already been severely disrupted. There is a real possibility, however, that that vital channel for the delivery of aid will be cut off altogether if there is a war. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to tell the House what alternative measures are being prepared to replace the programme if it is suspended for several months.
  Mr. Peter Luff: Does my hon. Friend agree that the oil-for-food programme does enormously more than just provide food? The consequences of losing that programme will be devastating in terms not only of food but of medicines, transport, telecommunications, infrastructure and water supply. It will affect the lot.
  Mrs. Spelman: My hon. Friend is right. The programme extends to the infrastructure requirements of the country and I shall deal with that matter.
  Will the Secretary of State shed light on why more than $4 billion in oil revenues remain unspent in United Nations accounts when that has been allocated to humanitarian programmes in Iraq? Will the right hon. Lady investigate whether it would be possible to secure that money to fund vital humanitarian programmes in Iraq in the event of war? It seems absurd that Iraqis are living in appalling poverty and misery while $4 billion lies unspent in UN accounts. Those are the profits from the sale of Iraqi oil and they must now be used to help the Iraqi people.
  Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Lady give way now?
  Mrs. Spelman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is going to ask me about refugees.
  Mr. Salmond: I am. Is the hon. Lady aware that a nine-year-old Kurdish girl who fled persecution in Iraq a year ago has been successful in winning the prestigious Bridgeton Burns club award from Sighthill primary school in that area of Glasgow, which is an inspirational example of what can be achieved if asylum seekers' children are educated in local schools? The question is a serious one. What purpose would it serve for a similar child escaping persecution in Iraq or elsewhere to be locked up in a detention centre?
  Mrs. Spelman: I am sure that I may extend my congratulations to that Iraqi girl through the hon. Gentleman, who I sincerely hope will pass on that
  1046
  message from all of us. He is aware, I am sure, that there is probably not one Member of Parliament who has not had to deal in his or her surgery with the case of an Iraqi asylum seeker. They are the largest group of asylum seekers in this country. I reiterate that we firmly believe that we need to be in a position to offer a safe haven to genuine refugees.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) recently asked the Secretary of State how much her Department would provide towards the UN appeal for basic readiness funding in the light of a possible war in Iraq. Her answer was that she was
  "not making funding available at this stage."—[Official Report, 20 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 26W.]
  She may not be doing so at this stage, but surely officials from her Department are making some calculations as to how much it is going to cost. Can the right hon. Lady tell us today how much her Department expects to contribute to this crisis and what impact she expects the war in Iraq to have on other programmes that the Department funds in other parts of the world?
  I am sure that the right hon. Lady shares my concern that a war in Iraq will disrupt the valuable work of her Department in Africa, Asia and other parts of the middle east. I hope, therefore, that she will actively encourage her counterparts in other countries, in particular European Union countries, to pay their fair share.
  Resolution 1441 won unanimous support from the UN. I see nothing wrong in saying that those countries that choose not to make a military contribution to this important stage of the war against terrorism should be willing to make a more significant contribution to the aid effort. After the events of 11 September, we were promised a global alliance against terrorism. We need to keep working to make that coalition as wide and strong as ever. If our fellow European countries are unwilling or unable to send troops to Iraq, surely they should play their part by bearing a considerable portion of the burden of aiding the Iraqi people. France and Germany cannot be mere spectators on the war on terrorism.
  In November last year, I held a forum in Westminster, attended by 17 aid agencies that operate in Iraq or on its borders. The forum was addressed by Larry Hollingworth, a UN emergency co-ordinator with considerable experience of working in conflict situations. Together, we identified the key elements of a comprehensive humanitarian response to a war in Iraq. I sent the Secretary of State a list of our conclusions, and a few weeks later received a meagre four and a half line reply, thanking me for my thoughts. That was hardly the reassurance that I sought from the Secretary of State.
  One of the primary conclusions that we reached in the forum concerned the absolute necessity of good co-ordination within the UN and between the UN and the non-governmental organisations. We also recognised the overwhelming importance of good co-ordination between the military campaign and the aid effort. Strong civil-military liaison is vital to an effective aid effort. However, on Friday, the Financial Times reported that a humanitarian operations centre, which was supposed to have opened in Kuwait on 15 January, had been delayed and was not now due to open until February—the eve of a possible war.

  1047
  The Secretary of State was quite willing to attack poor levels of co-ordination during the Afghan campaign. In November 2001, she told the Select Committee on International Development, with her typical candour, that the US military was not taking the aid effort seriously. She said:
  "The civil-military liaison is not working particularly well. The communications are there, but they are not being taken seriously enough at a high level".
  When my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), asked the Secretary of State for Defence on Monday what discussions about humanitarian work in Iraq he was having with the Secretary of State for International Development, he refused to answer the question and said:
  "I do not want to go into the details of … planning of the kind he mentions, because that implies the inevitability of military action."—[Official Report, 27 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 558.]
  That is not a satisfactory response. Military action should be our last resort, but that should not stop us from planning ahead for all eventualities. Is the Secretary of State for International Development now able to say what practical measures have been introduced to bring about greater co-ordination of the military and humanitarian forces than was the case during the war in Afghanistan?
  Last October, Ali Hasmati, a UN information officer in Baghdad told the French Press Agency that the UN was making no preparation for how it would continue to deliver aid in the event of conflict. He said:
  "We don't have anything materialised so far because we have no indications that any of what you said"
  —about war—
  "is going to happen and we still hope that things will be solved diplomatically and politically".
  In a similar vein, in a written answer on 15 October last year, the Secretary of State told me that she was not actively discussing a humanitarian strategy for Iraq with the UN, the US or the European Union.
  It is surely not acceptable for the Department for International Development to adopt an ostrich stance, sticking its head in the sand and hoping that war will never happen. There are leaked UN reports of UN contingency planning, but at the end of last month still no funds had been made available for even the basic preparations to begin. The Foreign Secretary admitted this week that war is now likely—something confirmed by President Bush's "state of the union" address.
  The Gulf war caught the international community unprepared: we should learn from our mistakes. The Government need to be actively preparing a comprehensive military strategy to assist the people of Iraq in the event of conflict. We could be at war within two months, so there should be some well-advanced plans firmly in place by now. Food and vaccines should be stockpiled on the borders. Alternatives to the oil-for-food programme should have been found, and strong co-ordination between the military campaign and the humanitarian effort should have been firmly established. The Secretary of State should at least have an estimate of the commitment that her Department may make to a possible emergency and the impact that it will have on the rest of her Department's work.
  1048
  Above all, there is the moral imperative to help the Iraqi people. We are a rich nation and so is the US. We have chosen to stand shoulder to shoulder with the US in our own national interest, but we should not eschew the responsibility of reaching out to the innocents who may be caught up in the consequences of our actions. My cherished hope is that war can be avoided, but my conscience will not be clear until I am satisfied that the Government have proper plans for humanitarian relief.
  2.36 pm
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): I am grateful to the Opposition for providing the opportunity to hold a debated focused on the humanitarian situation in Iraq and the risks to the Iraqi people of any possible military conflict. I hope that, with the permission of the House, I can also respond to the debate, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is attending her mother-in-law's funeral. I hope that my request will be acceptable to the House.
  I have to tell the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) that this debate is enormously important and it is overdue, but the sort of petty point-scoring way in which she spoke is regrettable. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, come on."] No, I am being very serious. I would have liked an opportunity to discuss these matters on the Floor of the House before. The usual channels did not provide that opportunity. I wonder whether she is aware of what the usual channels on her side are saying about her declining opportunities to say anything on the Floor of the House. She might want to look into those matters.
  David Maclean: Nonsense.
  Clare Short: You know what I mean.
  David Maclean: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is not often that an Opposition Chief Whip rises on a point of order, but I do not understand the right hon. Lady's allusion. I should be grateful to her if she would explain exactly what she meant by referring to the usual channels and the allegation that she has made; or if she would care to put the matter in writing, I would love to consider it carefully.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman does not understand it, he would not expect the occupant of the Chair to have any clearer view of the matter, and it should be pursued outside the scope of this debate.
  May I remind the right hon. Lady that she has used the second person, and I certainly have had nothing to do with those matters?
  Clare Short: I will be more than happy to remind the right hon. Gentleman of some of the proposals that have emanated from somewhere or other about reducing the time that might be spent—
  Gregory Barker: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Clare Short: No, I will not; I need to proceed, if I may.
  It was proposed in the normal way that we should seek to amend the Opposition motion, but, having looked at the motion, there was no case for amending it.

  1049
  I decided that those matters are too important for petty party-political point scoring and that we should proceed without tabling an amendment.
  The Liberal Democrat amendment has not been selected, but, equally, I completely accept its spirit—that we should consider in any military preparations that are made the need to look after the interests of the people of Iraq and minimise any harm to them—if not the more political point about landmines and cluster bombs. I do not say that I am in favour of those things, but perhaps that point was put in a slightly different spirit. My view and the Government's view is that Saddam Hussein is a terrible tyrant dedicated to developing and possessing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. I know that many members of the public doubt that, and say that the weapons inspectors must provide evidence. Any scrutiny of the record from the Gulf war onwards in relation to requests by the Security Council for Iraq to disarm, with the prospect of the lifting of sanctions against Iraq, must lead to the conclusion that the regime is dedicated to owning those weapons. Otherwise, sanctions would have been removed a long time ago, there would be much less suffering for the people of Iraq, and that country's natural wealth and oil would have been used to restore the prosperity of Iraq, which is naturally wealthy and oil-rich.
  Mr. Salmond: I accept much of what the Secretary of State has just said. Is it not important that, for example, the nuclear inspections that have taken place—I know that she has read the relevant documents—have provided some clarification? Have not some of the fears expressed only a few weeks ago by the White House about the imminence of Iraq's nuclear programme been confounded by the inspectors' examination thus far?
  Clare Short: I shall refer in a few minutes to Dr. Blix's report to the Security Council. His report is a worry, however, and he has said that he has had co-operation on process not substance. He reported to the Security Council some worrying lack of co-operation and worrying evidence. On the other hand, the previous inspection regime dismantled many armaments, including nuclear armaments. If we could only return to that position, we might have an outcome from this crisis without a war that would cause great suffering to the people of Iraq. I am not sure whether I have fully answered the hon. Gentleman's point.
  Mr. Salmond: On the specifics, the right hon. Lady will remember that only a few weeks ago we were told that piping that had been identified in Iraq was certainly part of a process of building up a nuclear capability. It is clear from the nuclear aspect of the inspectors' report thus far, however, that that is unlikely to be the case. That indicates why it is important that people are given the time and space to examine things properly and that we do not rush into conflict.
  Clare Short: I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman that the inspectors must be given the proper time. I recommend that everyone read Dr. Blix's statement to the Security Council, which is short and very factual, in which he says that there are very serious problems on his side of the search for chemical and
  1050
  biological weapons. None of us can therefore be sanguine about the intentions of the regime to co-operate with the inspectors, although we should all wish to bring about that objective. 1 am clear, and all sane people should be clear, that there should be no rush to war. We must be invincibly committed to backing up the authority of the United Nations this time, not backing off. Saddam Hussein's regime must know that the world will remain united behind the authority of the United Nations, that he will be forced by one means or another to dismantle his weapons of mass destruction and that, if necessary, the world will be willing to use military force to back up the authority of the United Nations. That is the right place for the world to be, and that is where public opinion is in this country.
  Llew Smith: The Secretary of State will be aware that approximately half of the Iraqi population is under 14 years of age. Does she accept that if we go to war, the damage and devastation that will be inflicted on those children will be far greater than any damage that may be inflicted on the grass at Hyde park if those who wish to protest against the war and avert a humanitarian disaster are allowed to do so on 15 February? Is it not a warped sense of priorities that is leading to a ban on that demonstration on 15 February?
  Clare Short: I agree with my hon. Friend that we must do everything that we can to make sure that children and people in Iraq do not suffer from any possible military action if such action is necessary to enforce the authority of the UN. We must be willing to contemplate military action to enforce the authority of the UN.
  On the question of the demonstration, I know nothing apart from what I have read in the press about access to Hyde park. I welcome the fact that so many people in Britain are troubled by the prospects of war. I am glad that I live in a country that is troubled by the prospects of war and does not relish the prospects of war, and that people are willing to make their views felt. I hope that some accommodation can be found in relation to the problems of Hyde park. I cannot give my hon. Friend any assurances, however, as I know only what has been in the press.
  Llew Smith: If I am right, and there is a ban on that demonstration in Hyde park on 15 February, does that display a warped sense of priorities?
  Clare Short: As I said, I have read what is in the press, and I have heard someone responsible for the royal parks say that there is a danger of having a demonstration in that park. I certainly believe that the demonstration must be allowed to go ahead and that people must be allowed to rally and make speeches. That is important in a democracy. I cannot with any expertise tell my hon. Friend about the ruling on the park. I hope that he will not press me on that, as I have no knowledge with which to inform him. As is clear, both sides of the House feel strongly that people in our country must have a right to express their views on these matters. My view—which, again, is the view of the Government—is that if we can keep the world united around the invincible authority of the United Nations, and if we can move forward on progress towards the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside a secure and safe Israel, the

  1051
  world will be in a much better shape to deal with this crisis. The threat of bitter division that is ripping across the world and is a great danger would thereby be minimised. The ideal way to proceed is to back up the authority of the UN and make progress on Israel and Palestine. I note that President Bush in his state of the union address said:
  "We will continue to seek peace between a secure Israel and a democratic Palestine".
  I do not know about "continue", but I hope that we can take those ideas forward. Now that the elections have taken place in Israel, I hope that the quartet can publish their own map and move forward rapidly to making plans for final status for a Palestinian state. If we can do that, we can handle this crisis in a much safer world with much greater unity across the world.
  Chris Grayling: The right hon. Lady will be aware that we have rightly provided refuge in this country during the difficult times in Iraq in recent years for many younger people in particular who have left that country. Naturally, if Iraq moves into a better future, they will be an extremely important part of putting the country back together again and giving it a prosperous and successful future. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) alluded to one example of that. Will she provide support within the humanitarian process for those people who are currently taking refuge in this country to return to a post-Saddam Iraq and play an active role in rebuilding that country?
  Clare Short: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman's point. I, like many other Members, have large numbers of Iraqi refugees—largely Kurdish but not exclusively so—in Ladywood who come to see me at my advice bureau. Most of them are highly educated and would be a great asset to a rebuilt Iraq. Our arrangements for asylum seekers need to be flexible to take in people who are facing persecution, and to assist those people to return to their countries, if their countries are liberated, to help rebuild them, as we have been doing in relation to Afghanistan. It is not a lead issue for my Department, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and we have tried to do that with regard to Kosovo and Afghanistan. Let us hope that, before long, we will have a free and democratic Afghanistan and that some of those refugees seeking asylum in our country will be able to return home to a free country.
  As I was saying, the fallout from the sense of double standards about the world's urgency in dealing with the problem with Iraq, and lack of urgency in dealing with the problem of Israel and Palestine, is a great danger to the future of the world. It is causing enormous tension, hostility and anger throughout this country, but, even more so, throughout the Muslim and Arab world. I believe that the view of the old and the new Europe is that we should do all in our power to move forward on that issue, and that the world would be in much better shape if we were able to do so.
  While I welcome the concern among the people of our country that there should not be a war that inflicts great suffering on the already long-suffering people of Iraq, it is our duty to send the firm message to Saddam Hussein
  1052
  that this time the UN is in business, is invincible and will not go away, and that there must be disarmament. I agree very much with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that the threat of military force needs to be exercised to avoid, if possible, the use of military force.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: I know how deeply the Secretary of State cares about such issues. Suffering will occur if there is war, and there will be mayhem and death. Of course no one would welcome a war, but does she accept that death is already being inflicted on young people in Iraq—those under 14 who make up half the population and older people by the tyrant Saddam Hussein? In the past 12 years since the end of the Gulf war probably hundreds of thousands of people have been killed by the Government in Iraq.
  Clare Short: I agree that Saddam Hussein is a terrible tyrant. There is evidence of gross torture and I have heard deeply chilling stories from asylum seekers in my constituency. The humanitarian situation across the country is terrible, and we should think of the humanitarian consequences of any possible military action, which is the value of the debate. We should al so consider taking military action if it is necessary to minimise suffering and to maximise the speed with which Iraq is reconstituted so that it gets up and going and its economy is improved.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: There is little disagreement between hon. Members on both sides of the House about the current situation, but as the right hon. Lady just said, the key consideration is the preparation of contingency plans for any humanitarian problems that might emerge. May I take it that in the remaining moments of her comments she will inform the House exactly what her Department is doing, because at the moment we have almost nothing to go on? The purpose of the debate is to seek details from her. We would love those to be forthcoming in the minutes left.
  Clare Short: I regret taking that intervention because it was silly. I am setting the scene for the difficulties we face. Of course I will come on to the humanitarian considerations. The hon. Gentleman is simply involved in the same cheap point scoring as the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). It is necessary to prepare to minimise harm if military action is taken and to make arrangements for the reconstruction of the country as rapidly as possible. To achieve that, we need to ensure that the UN takes the lead in the reconstruction, as it did in Kosovo, East Timor and Afghanistan. That needs to be agreed across the international community.
  Neighbouring countries do not want to talk to other countries about what they might do for humanitarian purposes in the event of war. The public opinion in their countries is raging about the prospect of war. That is one of the dangers. The UN is making preparations, but it was cautious of doing so early on. It was also careful about whom it talked to because it did not want to say to the world, "The UN is preparing for war."
  Mrs. Spelman rose—
  Clare Short: The hon. Lady can stay seated for a moment while I finish. She started by trying to score

  1053
  cheap points. [Interruption.] She did. That is my opinion and I will make my view clear. All parties have recently been more willing to prepare for all contingencies, including the military in the United States of America, but it has not been easy to get discussions and analysis going across the international system to prepare for all those. Anyone who pauses to reflect intelligently on the strains and tensions across the international system because of the crisis would realise why that has been difficult. Greater movement to that effect has taken place recently. The hon. Lady got the true answers to her questions, but my Department has been working for a considerable time on all contingencies. That work is developing and we are getting more co-operation from some of our international partners which was difficult to get before.
  Mrs. Spelman: I specifically asked about discussions with neighbouring countries. I am sure the right hon. Lady is aware that the leaked UN report has an assessment of how many refugees might go in which directions and which countries are willing to open their borders. I asked about that because refugees might have to move through lines of British troops. The Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development need to co-ordinate on that. I hope to get a more ample answer in the light of that UN report.
  Clare Short: If the hon. Lady followed the details of other crises, she would know that that is the responsibility of the United Nations. It takes the lead on that. I note that she had a meeting with Larry Hollingsworth. He performed badly in that role in the Kosovo crisis and we had great difficulties with UNHCR's performance, as the Select Committee on International Development made clear at the time. But the UN will take the lead, for which it is preparing. It is also trying to predict possible risks, in so far as anyone can do that, and sharing that information with partners in the UN system.
  As has been said, the humanitarian situation is already a tragedy. The population of Iraq is largely dependent on food handouts. Its agricultural sector is operating way below capacity. Almost a third of all children in the centre and south suffer from chronic malnutrition. The prevalence of low birth weight babies has increased more than five times in the past 10 years. Iraq's under-five mortality rate is 131 per thousand live births, which is worse than the Democratic Republic of Congo or Mozambique. Death from diarrhoea and acute respiratory infections, both easily preventable, account for 70 per cent. of child mortality. More than half of Iraqis living in rural areas have no access to safe water. The average Iraqi child under five suffers from 14 bouts of diarrhoea a year.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: The right hon. Lady knows that child malnutrition in Iraq has improved slightly over the past year or so. That is probably down to the success of the oil-for-food programme and the UN food programmes in Iraq. I hope she will tell us a little more about how the oil-for-food programme will continue, especially post-conflict, and assure hon. Members and the people of Iraq that there will be no
  1054
  exploitation of Iraq's oil resources for the benefit of multinational corporations. Those resources should purely be for the benefit of the people of Iraq.
  Clare Short: I will deal with the oil-for-food programme. It is important. I give the hon. Gentleman the absolute assurance, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that the oil resources of Iraq belong to the people of Iraq and should be used for their benefit and to reconstruct the country if there is military action. First, however, let me put some of the realities of the humanitarian situation on the record.
  The country's infrastructure is in chronic disrepair. Hospitals, clinics, sanitation facilities and water treatment plants suffer from a terrible lack of maintenance. The result is that the Iraqi people's lives are perilously fragile. Their coping strategies have been worn away by years of misrule. The public facilities to help them cope are run down, often to the point of uselessness.
  Ann Clwyd: Will my right hon. Friend draw a distinction between northern Iraq, which is under Kurdish rule, and the rest of the country, which is under Saddam's rule, and highlight the differences between the two? Both parts of Iraq are subject to sanctions. The people in northern Iraq are subject to Saddam's sanctions in addition to UN sanctions, but the circumstances of the people there are very different to those in Saddam's Iraq.
  Clare Short: My hon. Friend's point is well made. Under the same oil-for-food programme, children in the north are healthy and doing well, but children in the rest of the country are doing badly. Some of the money is unspent because the regime is not using the oil-for-food programme to the benefit of its people. It is not possible for the UN or the Government to make Saddam Hussein use the resources to benefit his people. If he did, they would not be in the same situation.
  There was a slow start because the international system was unwilling to be seen to be preparing for war. I am sure that, on reflection, all hon. Members will accept that. But there has recently been a move towards considering all possible contingencies and scenarios. Work is proceeding and the UN is engaging in it. We are in touch with it on all possible humanitarian scenarios.
  Andrew Selous: I should like to take the right hon. Lady back to her remarks about the preparations in the United Nations. I am sure that we are all extremely pleased to hear that they are going on. But, given that she has made valid criticisms of the UN's performance during Kosovo, will she tell us her assessment of those preparations and whether Britain is remonstrating seriously with the UN if in her opinion there are deficiencies, so that they can be made up before it is too late?
  Clare Short: I have had talks with the various UN humanitarian organisations and the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which leads co-ordination of the UN effort. I think that the preparations are as good as they can be. There are so many risks and uncertainties that it is very difficult to prepare. I shall come on to some of those risks and

  1055
  uncertainties. With regard to the UN appeal for, I think, $37 million to make preparations, the United States has said that it will pay that money and that the pay-over is in hand. I had discussions with Andrew Natsios, head of the United States Agency for International Development, USAID, in Addis Ababa a week or so ago, when he gave that undertaking.
  Since some of the deficiencies of the UNHCR operation in Kosovo—which we should contrast with the World Food Programme, which did extremely well in Kosovo—the UN's operations in Kosovo, Afghanistan and East Timor have been impressive in very difficult situations. The system is improving. We have been working very hard to get it to improve and to be more effectively co-ordinated. Obviously, all such efforts need to continue if there is a military conflict and the UN is put into a leading position in coping with it.
  I hope that the whole House will agree that the best scenario is that war should be avoided if possible. It is very clear from Dr. Blix's report that
  "Iraq does not appear to have come to genuine acceptance of disarmament and is co-operating on process and not substance."
  As I told the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), the previous inspectors achieved a great deal of disarmament, and we should not forget that. With the pressure and willingness to take action behind the UN, if we could persuade Iraq to be willing to allow the inspectors to disarm, we could achieve a better outcome for the people of Iraq. We must continue to work on that. If that could be done, sanctions could be lifted and the country could be restored very quickly. In such a situation, it is very likely that the people of Iraq would change their leader, and my hon. Friend and those with whom she has been working would have the satisfaction of making sure that Saddam Hussein was brought to book in the courts for the terrible suffering and breach of international law that he has imposed on the people of his country and the region. Obviously, that is the most desirable scenario. Keeping up the pressure for possible military conflict behind the UN is one way of trying to achieve that scenario, if it is at all possible.
  I should like to set out the humanitarian risks. There is a very serious risk, if there was military action and there was not good organisation, that large-scale ethnic fighting could break out in the country. There has been deep repression. With the different ethnic groups, that fighting could result in a humanitarian nightmare. Any preparations for military action have to take account of that. There needs to be order and stability in the country to avoid what would otherwise be a humanitarian disaster. That is risk number one.
  There is a second risk that the non-governmental organisations have drawn attention to. It is that any bombing to take out electronic capacity and thus disarm anti-aircraft capacity could present a danger to electrics and damage water and sanitation facilities as a consequence. There would be the resultant danger that people would not have access to water and that sanitation facilities would be even worse than they are now. Clearly, preparations need to be made against that eventuality so that the health of the people of Iraq does not suffer.
  1056
  The third risk is what happened after the Gulf war: the booby-trapping of oil installations, with resultant environmental damage. It would also damage and slow down the reconstruction of Iraq and the capacity of its people to use their oil for the benefit of their own country. Every effort must be made to try to ensure that that does not happen.
  The next risk, mentioned by the hon. Member for Meriden and the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), is that oil for food would be disrupted. Of course, disorder would disrupt it. It is a massive system, and most of the people of Iraq depend on it, not simply for adequate supplies, but, in the case of Baghdad-controlled Iraq, for the very basics of human survival. Accordingly, any action needs to be very organised and calm, ensuring that the capacity of the system is maintained or that a replacement system is put into place very quickly. Otherwise, many people across the country would not have the very basic necessities of life.
  The final risk, and the most difficult for the international humanitarian system to prepare for, is that chemical and biological weapons might be used in fighting, including fighting around Baghdad or other urban areas. Everybody will know that that horrendous possibility is being prepared for with the ordering of special suits to protect troops that might be engaged, and that there are preparations in terms of immunisation against the obvious risks posed by the use of chemical and biological weapons. But what about the people of Iraq? No one can provide them with suits or immunisation. That is the most horrifying humanitarian possibility. The UN system is preparing for it and plans that its staff should be withdrawn, because there is no way of protecting them. Obviously, everything should be done to prevent it, if it is humanly possible, but should it happen the military would have to look after the people of Baghdad or wherever in Iraq it occurred. Those preparations are beginning to be thought through.
  That shows the complexity of the possible humanitarian disasters that could occur if there is military action.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: I welcome what the Secretary of State has just said about the people of Iraq. I wonder whether she has ever read any medical descriptions of malnourished children dying as a result of attack by chemical weapons. They are absolutely horrendous. She should implore the people who are contemplating action on Iraq to do everything possible not just to protect our own soldiers and UN personnel, but to find some way of protecting the children of Iraq.
  Clare Short: I defer to the hon. Lady's expertise as a doctor. I have read quite detailed accounts of the suffering of people and children at Halabja and some of the consequences of the use of chemicals there. I could read more and I am sure that I would be even more horrified. But one can feel the mood of the House. Everyone wants to avoid that eventuality if we can.
  Glenda Jackson: Surely the situation that my right hon. Friend has just painted with regard to the possible use of chemical and biological weapons, if they are there, is even worse, because during the Kuwait conflict

  1057
  the American Government made it clear to Saddam Hussein that if such weapons were used in the field the Americans would use nuclear weapons. Surely, the best possible protection that can be afforded to the children of Iraq is for everyone inside this House and outside it to argue very fiercely for the inspectors to be given more time and for the possibility and indeed the reality of war to be pushed further and further away.
  Clare Short: I agree with my hon. Friend that we should do everything we can to avoid this risk. But I do not agree with those who say that we can do nothing. I think that the case for the inspectors to have more time—Dr. Blix has asked for this—is overwhelming. But last time Saddam Hussein made it impossible for the inspectors to do their job and to disarm the weapons that were there. We cannot allow that to happen again. He has impoverished his country, terrorised his people, destroyed a wealthy economy, all because he is so dedicated to having these weapons. We cannot ignore it, because one day they will be used against somebody. We must find the best possible way of working through the United Nations and minimising the risk of military action, or if it has to take place to back up the authority of the UN, to minimise the risk of harm to the people of Iraq. That is the case that I am trying to put, the case around which I think the people of this country are united. That is the way in which the people of this country should try to use their influence to get the world through this crisis.
  Gregory Barker: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Clare Short: With respect, I have given way a lot. I must get on and leave time for other hon. Members to make speeches.
  I hope that I have reassured the House that contingency planning is under way. We are trying to take full account of the risks, but I am sure that the House is aware that humanitarians cannot make preparations alone—there must be collaboration between military planners and humanitarians if we are to prepare for all eventualities and risks. We are working on that, but we can never say such work is perfect—it needs to be developed more strongly. On top of all of that, the international humanitarian system is under considerable strain, as there are enormously complicated problems with drought and food shortages in southern Africa, the horn of Africa and Angola. Every day, five million people in Afghanistan need food aid, and the humanitarian situation on the west bank and Gaza is very serious and getting worse. My Department's resources and those of the international humanitarian system are therefore strained. We will, of course, play our part in any international humanitarian effort, but no one should be complacent about the international system's resources or, indeed, those of my Department.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: On the narrow point of resources, so that the House can gain an understanding of the resources that may be required to deal with the humanitarian situation in Iraq, will the right hon. Lady tell the House about the resources being devoted to
  1058
  preparation? What resources will the Department be able to provide for relief if we go to war and end up in the situation that she described?
  Clare Short: In terms of gross national income, the UK's contribution to any humanitarian crisis throughout the world, as determined by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, is just over 5 per cent.—that is all. As hon. Members know, my Department's budget has virtually doubled since 1997, but is under strain, as I have just said. We have a contingency reserve and Iraq would be prioritised. However, I have just been in Africa, where there is a real fear about resources being taken away from southern Africa, the horn of Africa, the Afghan people, the west bank and Gaza—that would be wrong and we would not contemplate it. We will play our part in the international system, but the Department is not flush with resources—I must frankly warn the House that they are short.
  Gregory Barker rose—
  Clare Short: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman for persistence, if nothing else.
  Gregory Barker: A little earlier, the right hon. Lady referred to the possible use by Saddam Hussein of chemical or biological weapons. Given what has been discussed in Washington and what was said during the last Gulf war, is there any scenario in which the British Government would either use nuclear weapons against Iraq or countenance supporting their use?
  Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman will know that I am not a military planner, but I cannot envisage any scenario whatsoever, given the scenarios that I have just put to the House, in which contemplating the use of nuclear weapons would be of any use whatsoever. I speak as someone who is not a military expert but as someone who has thought through the humanitarian contingencies of the present crisis and the prospect of military action.
  I am sure that the House agrees—the country feels this very strongly—that the world in an extremely fragile state. I believe that there is a way through the crisis—it is to back the invincible authority of the UN and make progress in the middle east peace process. That is the position that the people of the UK and most people in the world support, and it is the position of the UK Government. As the House knows, the Prime Minister is about to go and have talks with the President of the United States of America, and I am sure that we all wish him Godspeed so that the points made in today's debate can be fully taken into account by the US Government and the world can get through the crisis in the best possible shape, with the people of Iraq being liberated and going on to build up and reconstruct their country, as they are entitled to do.
  3.14 pm
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: I welcome this Opposition day debate. If the Liberal Democrats had been offered such an opportunity—if, indeed, we are ever offered an Opposition day debate again—we would certainly have had a debate on this issue, but I suspect

  1059
  that it would have had sharper teeth, which may be why we are not getting any Opposition day debates at the moment. I shall leave the Secretary of State to draw her own conclusions.
  The Conservatives have been enthusiastic in their support for the USA's policy on Iraq, exceeding even the enthusiasm of the Prime Minister. I am therefore nauseated by the rows of grey suits on the Tory Benches, all looking concerned and shedding crocodile tears-—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. This is a very serious matter, and the House should approach it in that way.
  Dr. Tonge: I am glad that they are upset, Mr. Deputy Speaker—perhaps the words hit home. I am sorry to laugh, but those Members are quite funny too.
  The debate introduced by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) is doubly welcome. None of my remarks would ever apply to her, because she has been extremely concerned about the issue for a long time. She has discussed it with both the Secretary of State and me, and I am sorry that she has not been able to bring it to the House—or that her colleagues have not let her do so—before. My concern about the humanitarian situation in Iraq increased two years ago when a party of bishops returned from a fact-finding tour of the country. One of them was the Rev. Peter Price, then Bishop of Kingston who, sadly for my constituents, has now gone to Wells.
  The bishops reported on the terrible conditions experienced by many Iraqi people, particularly the children. The Iraqis depend on a modern but decayed infrastructure and for years they have been short of food and medicine. The hon. Member for Meriden gave us a lot of statistics, and I have some, too. One in 10 children die before the age of five; a quarter of Iraqi children suffer from malnutrition; many will be dead in one to five days if they are not fed in the event of war; 15 million people are already dependent on food aid, and another 5.4 million will need feeding if the oil-for-food programme stops suddenly. All those figures are from the UN needs assessment, which also states that, in the event of war, 2 million people will need therapeutic feeding, which is even more expensive and difficult.
  The usual Government response is that the oil-for-food programme allowed for sufficient food and medicine for the Iraqi people, but Saddam Hussein was not using the revenues for the right purpose. As the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) pointed out, there is evidence that in north Iraq, where the UN administers the oil-for-food programme, conditions are better and people are in better health. Nevertheless, Saddam Hussein has starved his people and could blame the west for their suffering because of the oil-for-food programme. Economic sanctions are the culprit to some extent, and he has used us as a propaganda tool. That is why, two years ago, at our annual conference, the Liberal Democrats called for the lifting of economic sanctions on Iraq. At the very least, that would have stopped Saddam Hussein blaming the USA and this country for his people's suffering. Military sanctions,
  1060
  arms embargoes and freezing bank accounts, where possible, would have been a far better way of damaging Iraq's leaders.
  Mr. Robathan: I served with the hon. Lady for many years on the Select Committee on International Development. Does she accept that while the people of Iraq may hear Saddam Hussein blaming sanctions, they know that Mesopotamia and the Euphrates valley have always been an enormously wealthy area? They know that there is oil in the ground. They are not as stupid as some people may think, and know where to put the blame for their suffering—on the dictator Saddam Hussein.
  Dr. Tonge: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right, but that does not negate my point that economic sanctions have stopped the people of Iraq getting the food that they need, and we have taken the blame for it. [Interruption.]
  Gregory Barker: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Dr. Tonge: No, I will not give way again. The situation remains as I have described, and I pay tribute to the Iraqi people in my constituency who have lobbied me over the past five years not to forget the children of Iraq, who are dying because they have no food and no medicine.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: On that point—
  Dr. Tonge: May I make some progress?
  The Secretary of State told us that thought has been given to the likelihood of Saddam Hussein using on his own people again whatever chemical and biological weapons he may have left, even if he cannot attack surrounding countries. That is a dread of mine. The Afghanistan bombing killed 5,000 civilians directly, and many others—20,000 or more—died from the indirect effects of that action. The World Health Organisation estimates 500,000 casualties from bombing Iraq, and the use of chemical and biological weapons on a malnourished and sick population would kill hundreds of thousands more. We are looking at a vision of hell in that country when war breaks out. Are we prepared for that?
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Lady may have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) say from the Front Bench that there are $4 billion in oil revenue reserves unspent in UN accounts, and that those funds were earmarked for aid but have not been spent. Will the hon. Lady speculate about why that money has not been spent on aiding Iraq?
  Dr. Tonge: It is my understanding that there are two reasons. One is that the contracts are so incredibly bureaucratic that the money has been left-—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have had enough interventions from a sedentary position from various parts of the house. Perhaps we can get on with the debate in a sensible way.
  Dr. Tonge: The first reason is that the process is very slow moving. The contracts that need to be set up so that

  1061
  the money can be used to buy products, food and so on are extremely slow, so the money stays where it is. Secondly, Saddam Hussein does not want to feed his people, and we get the blame for it.
  Iraqis are also dying because they have no clean water: 70 per cent. of infant deaths are caused by diarrhoea and respiratory infection linked to water pollution. The River Tigris receives 500,000 tonnes of raw sewage every day. Hon. Members should remember that when they are next on the Terrace with their visitors, admiring the view of the Thames.
  Mr. Kerry Pollard: Does the hon. Lady understand that raw sewage is going into that river because the Iraqis do not have sewage treatment plants? They do not have them because the United Nations will not allow the pumps to be bought because they can be put to dual use. That has nothing to do with the Iraqi regime. The UN will not allow the pumps through, and that is because of the Americans. I have visited Iraq twice and I know—I have seen it.
  Dr. Tonge: The hon. Gentleman has made my point well for me. One of the saddest things about economic sanctions on Iraq has been the decay of the infrastructure, which has led to the terrible plight of the people there, with no clean water or proper sewage systems because they cannot be repaired.
  During the war on Iraq, water treatment equipment will be needed for 5.4 million people directly, to give them some clean water. Have we planned for that? Electrical supply is needed to power water and sewage plants, and that, too, has been affected by economic sanctions. A third of the power supply is still down after the 1991 war, and those essential plants have never been repaired. Does the Secretary of State have assurances that her Government and that of the USA will not do further damage to what is left of Iraq's infrastructure, as was the case in Serbia and Afghanistan? For heaven's sake, let the people of Iraq have the water and power that they have left.
  Has the Secretary of State assessed the likely flow of refugees? The hon. Member for Meriden spoke about that at length. Already, there are 700,000 displaced people within Iraq. That number will increase. Thousands will flee across heavily mined areas, adding to civilian injury and casualties. Iran has estimated that 900,000 will go there, and it already has 3 million refugees, many still there from the Afghanistan wars. Iran has no capacity to take any more. Will that country receive help when it requests that, or will it suffer from being one of George Bush's "axis of evil" countries and be totally ignored? If so, innocent people, including many Iraqis, will suffer.
  Is UNHCR prepared? Will the United States and its allies use land mines and cluster bombs? We need to know that as a matter of urgency. Must we add to the destruction and horror that will go on in Iraq by adding even more explosives, which will affect the civilian population, not the military? Have plans been made for safe havens within Iraq? That needs to be done early on in hostilities so that people know there are safe havens, particularly around Basra, so that people from the south can get to them. That is essential if there is to be a war.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: The hon. Lady mentioned cluster bombs and land mines. We bear in mind what the
  1062
  Secretary of State said on the matter, but we must remember that depleted uranium was used in the previous Gulf war. The response of the Prime Minister during Prime Minister's questions yesterday to the leader of the hon. Lady's party, when he suggested strongly that there would be US control over British forces in Iraq suggests to me that we may see weapons being used of which the British Government do not approve. That should concern all of us in the House.
  Dr. Tonge: The hon. Gentleman makes one of the most serious points made this afternoon. Do we really want to go to war with our forces under the control of a Government who, over the past few years, have withdrawn from almost every international treaty one can think of? Will we subject our troops to such activity?
  Past experiences are not good. In Afghanistan, it took a great deal of publicity from NGOs and others—the House will remember that I called for Afghanistan to be bombed with food, to much ridicule from the boys on the Benches, but never mind—to highlight the humanitarian situation there. Food aid eventually got through, but not without immense difficulty. The west promised not to forget Afghanistan.
  Clare Short: I have said before that I admire what the World Food Programme achieved in Afghanistan throughout the crisis, from the pulling out of all UN international staff before any military action got going. Right through the military action and ever since, the UN has been feeding people there. The figure went up to 9 million and it is still 5 million people daily. The World Food Programme managed to keep that going. For the record, that was a fantastic achievement and very important.
  Dr. Tonge: The right hon. Lady leads me to my next point. We all remember the Prime Minister pledging not to forget Afghanistan once the bombing was over. Of the money that has been pledged and delivered for the reconstruction of that country, 70 per cent. is still being spent on humanitarian aid. That will happen in Iraq in the event of a war, so reconstruction will be very slow.
  Ann Clwyd: The Prime Minister has argued all along for an expansion of the international security assistance force in Afghanistan to avoid having to spend so much on humanitarian aid and to allow more to be spent on reconstruction. While there is insecurity in that country, that will be the case.
  Dr. Tonge: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady, but I suspect that we are drifting away from the humanitarian situation in Iraq. It is useful to reflect on what happened in Afghanistan. I was about to report similar failures in the Balkans. The aid pledged for that region is dwindling year after year. The middle east is a running sore and getting worse. In Kashmir, where I have just been for a few days, there is terrible suffering among people caught up in an impasse between nuclear powers. I have not even mentioned Africa, to which the hon.

  1063
  Member for Meriden referred. The world is forced to look at Iraq because America says so, but there are far greater problems.
  David Winnick: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Dr. Tonge: No, I will not give way again. I have nearly finished my remarks and I want others to have a chance to speak.
  If war is waged on Iraq, a humanitarian catastrophe could spread all over the middle east and not be confined to Iraq's borders. How much money will be needed to deliver aid and reconstruction to Iraq during and after the war? What proportion of that—the Secretary of State touched on this—will once again have to come out of the DFID budget? I say this every time these things happen. That budget is bled for reconstruction and aid once a war is over. Why does the Ministry of Defence not pay for cleaning up its own messes? DFID's money is supposed to be used to meet the millennium targets on health, education and clean water for the poorest people
  of the world, and not—I repeat, not—to clean up the mess of yet another war.
  The Prime Minister was fond of telling us during the run-up to the bombing of Afghanistan that, following much pressure, he had a two-pronged approach: military and humanitarian. I believe that it was a three-pronged approach at times, with diplomatic efforts being made too. He has been only too ready this time, backed by the official Opposition, to use the military option, paying scant attention so far to other issues. The Opposition motion recognises the humanitarian crisis, and we will of course support it.
  Destruction is so easy. The USA and its allies can perhaps annihilate Iraq and Saddam Hussein, but at what cost? We will risk alienating Muslims for ever. We will certainly increase the risk of terrorist attacks here at home. We must not make war on the Iraqi people—only on their Government. Massive humanitarian aid, backed by patient diplomacy to encourage co-operation with the weapons inspectors, must go hand in hand with the threat of military action.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I inform the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, and that starts now.
  3.32 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: It is massively important that we are discussing this subject. I am pleased that the debate has proceeded as if it is on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. There is a substantive motion, but since the Government have not tabled an amendment to it and the Liberal Democrat amendment was not selected by the Speaker, the debate is about the issue only. Although I am one of those who always calls for substantive motions on which to vote in connection with Iraq so that we can hold the Government to account, the approach taken today is
  1064
  right when considering humanitarian concerns. I am against any war in these circumstances and have humanitarian concerns, but I recognise that there are those who would venture down the path of war but who nevertheless need to be concerned about humanitarian matters too.
  The spokespersons for each major party have put on record very important information about the condition of the people and children of Iraq. Therefore, I do not need to go into the material that I have picked up from Save the Children, for instance, and other organisations such as Desert Rescue. Such information has been presented much more authoritatively. Some of the most important, open and honest statements on the current condition of the people of Iraq have been made by the Secretary of State. Many of us will be able to use such weighty and important comments; they are invaluable.
  I think that the best contingency would be for us riot to attack Iraq, so that the dangers that I am talking about do not emerge. Those who claim to use the humanitarian argument by saying, "We should still go in because Saddam Hussein is slaughtering his people and is responsible for the conditions" can be in a difficult position. Effectively, many of them are saying, "We do not really want to go in; we were hoping that revealing and getting rid of the weapons would make us free from danger". So their argument about the condition of people in Iraq and the danger that they face drops away. The horrors that have been described in relation to the people of Iraq should not be added to by the extra consequences that are due to follow, which are our responsibility and not that of Saddam Hussein.
  I do not have to speak in detail about the horrors that have been suffered in Iraq as others have spelt them out, but it might be fruitful to consider how the current conditions emerged. Unfortunately, Britain is the last country in the world that should be involved in an attack on Iraq, because we are the old imperial power there. We created and shaped Iraq in 1920, and until 1932 we had a mandate over it that we exploited considerably for our own benefit, especially through the development of oil. It was not until Harold Macmillan, who was Foreign Secretary in 1955, signed the Baghdad pact—a bit of a wind of change in Iraq—that things started to alter in the country.
  Before the signing of the Baghdad pact, Iraq was notionally independent, but dominated by British interests. Some 50 per cent. of its national income came from oil, essentially through the British-controlled Iraq Petroleum Company, and we had Crown bases in Habbaniya, Shaiba and Basra. About 4,000 RAF troops were stationed there; I was among those in Basra at about that time. The Iraqi Levies were also established—an Iraqi force entirely controlled by British officers. A puppet monarchy was established and the country had a basically feudal regime that was interested in land control. The development of oil provisions was very much in British hands.
  The only opposition in Iraq at that time was underground. Among the army officers were some who dissented from the developments that were occurring, as they were greatly influenced by what was taking place under Colonel Nasser in Egypt. There was also an Iraqi communist party, which from 1937 had been involved in

  1065
  strikes in the oil industry and at the docks in Basra, and was a major focus for intellectuals and trade union activists.
  From 1958, some economic and social circumstances improved. When people have a hope that things will get better in future, the possibility of establishing democratic avenues begins to emerge, but we did not see that as a something that it was desirable to nurture and assist. When the Kurds looked to develop their aspirations, they looked towards the establishment of a Kurdistan, but that would have upset Turkey, so we did not want to be involved in it. In a later period, there was perceived to be a danger of the Shi'a Arabs in the south falling into the hands of the ayatollah and other influences in Iran, but that was to misunderstand the nature of the Shi'a and their commitment to Iraq.
  Improvements took place in conditions in Iraq. A welfare state was established, educational provision was extended, and there were improvements in housing. I saw a slum area on the edges of Baghdad that looked as if it was from the biblical period, although it had been established fairly recently. The conditions were terrible, with streets of mud, mud huts and open sewers. All that was replaced and proper housing, new streets and electricity were provided by new regimes. A cultured society was developing and extending. There had always been a tradition of learning in Baghdad and in other places, and that was now beginning to extend to more people. The regimes underwent coups and counter-coups, and in the end the Ba'ath party emerged and Saddam Hussein began to take over in 1980. The conditions of life for the Iraqi people started to deteriorate from 1982 to 1983, when the impact of the Gulf war began to kick in and the sanctions regime began. In my view, sanctions should not operate unless the people of a country ask for them—as in South Africa—because they have a considerable impact on people's standard of life.
  Saddam Hussein's military measures and internal controls and the consequences of the Gulf war led to an absolute collapse in the standard of living of the Iraqi people. By 1980, their standard of life per capita had grown to 42 per cent. of Britain's, having risen, mainly as a result of oil, from a figure of 18 per cent. only about a decade earlier. That crashed down to 11 per cent. two or three years ago. The trading connection, oil for food, has improved it somewhat, and it has risen to about 13 per cent., but economic circumstances are knocking it down again. Should we really be going in to hammer such people? The humanitarian thing to do is not to take that avenue, but to get in there and give them the assistance that they need—to uncouple the regime by giving people rising horizons and hope.
  3.43 pm
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: I start by commending my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) for her introduction to the debate. Given the robust nature of this place, she was thoughtful and placatory.
  I can tell the Secretary of State that if I ever found myself having to go into a fire fight, I should be very happy to have her at my side. We would regularly disagree, and I am sure that she must occasionally be quite an uncomfortable colleague to have around the
  1066
  Cabinet Table, but her commitment to her responsibilities shines through. I am happy to pay tribute to her performance, not only in this debate, but throughout her tenure in office.
  I have no registrable interest in the debate, but I am a trustee of World Relief, a major Christian charity that works in several of the poorest countries of the world. We work on behalf of churches, primarily through indigenous churches, including redevelopment work, microeconomic development work and working with maternal care and with children.
  I therefore disagree with the supercilious comment of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), about whose speech and attitude I have nothing complimentary to say. There are hon. Members in all parties who are committed to humanitarian concerns. They act on that in their own time, in their own way and for their own reasons, in my case, largely for Christian motives.
  I want to consider children in that context, but I wish to make some other comments first. As the Secretary of State pointed out, the debate has not been partisan. Some hon. Members who are against the war or the United States—both traditions flourish in the country and the House—could use the subject as a stalking horse for another debate on whether we should go to war. I do not belong to that fraternity. As the right hon. Lady knows, I broadly support the Government's action. I believe that Iraq poses a serious threat to the world and to us. Like every other sensible human being, I view war as a last, not a first resort. However, war is sometimes the lesser evil. In that spirit, 1 want to make one point in the short time allowed.
  We have already heard many statistics about the terrible plight of children in Iraq. We have heard about the large number of stillbirths, the high infant mortality rate and the malnutrition—there is no point in repeating those facts. However, bearing the statistics in mind, I remind the Secretary of State of Christian Aid's comments on its website in October last year. It stated that
  "the humanitarian needs of the civilian population during and after any conflict must be met … When drawing up plans for any military action, it is the responsibility of the warring parties to guarantee access and provide sufficient resources for the provision of independent humanitarian assistance … As Christian Aid can verify, the war in Afghanistan revealed a huge gap between assertions that humanitarian space would be created for the delivery of aid and the reality on the ground".
  I should like the Secretary of State to focus on the disparity between the rhetoric and planning and the delivery. It is remarkable that we are holding such a debate today. Perhaps more than any other debate, it shows how civilised we are as a nation. Does anybody believe that a similar debate is being conducted in Iraq? Of course not. We have the determination to confront and deal with evil, but we understand that there are consequences. At a human level, we want to respond to them. Given the disparity between planning and delivery, I ask the Secretary of State to focus for a moment on the children.
  We have heard that the children are already hurting. However, when war comes and refugees start to move, many will be children. Children need special help, facilities and food. They need grown-ups who have expertise and a commitment to focus on their needs

  1067
  above those of others. As we all know, there is always the danger that we plan for mass humanitarian aid and forget specific needs.
  The Government delight in appointing tsars. I should like the House to appoint the Secretary of State the children's tsar for Iraq as a result of the debate. I have limited confidence in the United Nations. I have limited confidence in big multinational organisations, because I have been where the right hon. Lady has been. I have more confidence in our ability to set ourselves certain tasks and goals, and in a strong and committed Secretary of State ensuring that they are met.
  The right hon. Lady could do the world and the people of Iraq a service if she would let her officials get on with dealing with the big multinational institutions, and she would become passionate about making sure that the consequences of war are ameliorated to the best of her ability, which, as we all understand, will be limited. I ask her to make a commitment about the after-effects, for the children.
  3.50 pm
  Joan Ruddock: In our debates on Iraq, many of us have pointed to history—my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) has done so today—to the west's double standards and hypocrisy, and to our role in arming and supporting the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. We do not start on the moral high ground, but we are where we are; and we are, of course, on the brink of war.
  The question for me is whether that war would be just and proportionate. I have no doubt that it is possible to construct a legal argument within the terms of UN resolution 1441, but there are wider considerations in the course of war. We must weigh in the balance threat, degree of force proposed, and humanitarian consequences. My right hon. Friend has listed some of the possible threats that people in Iraq would face today, but I want to remind the House of what happened in the Gulf war in 1991.
  The UN estimates that between 140,000 and 200,000 Iraqis died as a direct consequence of the war, rather than because of anything to do with sanctions. More than two-dozen factories and stores containing chemical, biological and probably nuclear material were hit, and their toxins were dispersed. Carcinogens from blazing oil wells spread across thousands of miles. The systematic bombing of electricity generating facilities, and of water storage and treatment facilities, left survivors without drinking water. The inclusion of chlorine and medicine on the UN embargo list provided the preconditions for the epidemics that followed. Iraqi health services, previously described by the World Health Organisation as a
  "first-class range of medical facilities",
  were overwhelmed. Primary health care and disease prevention programmes ceased.
  By April 1991, an estimated 1.5 million refugees had fled to the Iranian and Turkish borders. By May, between 15,000 and 20,000 of them were dead. The UN reported
  "near apocalyptic results on economic infrastructure",
  1068
  and concluded:
  "Iraq has for some time to come, been relegated to a pre-industrial age".
  Dr. Andrew Murrison: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Joan Ruddock: I will not. Most people in this House, including me, supported that Gulf war. My right hon. Friend said that we must minimise the risks if we go to war, but a few days ago the Pentagon let it be known that this time, the US plans to fire up to 800 cruise missiles in the first two days of the air campaign. That is twice as many as it fired in the whole of the 40-day Gulf war in 1991.
  We are all aware that today's Iraq is not the first-world state of 1990; it is in every sense now a poor, third-world country. The effects of a Dresden-like bombardment on these extremely vulnerable people I find too horrific to contemplate. How many will die in that bombardment? How many refugees will die as they try to flee the country? What will be the environment for those who survive? My right hon. Friend has acknowledged that humanitarian contingency planning will have to take account of the deliberate or inadvertent release of any remaining stocks of chemical or biological weapons. What will be the effect on survivors, deprived of medicine, food and water, breathing a cocktail of carcinogenic air, and facing searing heat in the coming summer months? What will be the cost to the men and women of the armed forces, who will have to remain for months if not years after the immediate war? What will be the cost to Iraq's neighbours?
  Iraq has been described as the most dangerous rogue state in the world, and al-Qaeda as the most dangerous international terrorist organisation. President Bush seeks to persuade us that they are connected. I do not find that credible—but let us assume that they are connected. What then? Is it likely that the west will become a greater or a lesser target for terrorists if we carpet-bomb Baghdad? Is it more or less likely that instability will spread throughout the whole region?
  Some hon. Members have argued that whatever the political risk to ourselves, we cannot do nothing. I suggest that we are not doing nothing. Iraq's military might has been reined in, and we have the most robust inspection regime ever mounted anywhere in the world. The inspectors have the authority to destroy weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems.
  Even were that to be achieved, there are hon. Members who argue—perhaps the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney) came closest to saying this—that it might be better to have the war to save the people of Iraq from their existing fate. I cannot accept that. It is, of course, not the purpose of resolution 1441, and it cannot be part of the judgment that the Security Council will take on hearing the inspectors' reports.
  I cannot believe that that is the best way forward for the Iraqi people. We know what the immediate humanitarian results are likely to be, but the question is: what will follow the military onslaught? Like the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd),

  1069
  I want to refer to Afghanistan, because that is where I believe we can see the answerI—have been to Kabul myself.
  Let me give the House the financial context alone. The cost to the United Kingdom of military action in Iraq has been estimated at more than $8 billion. By comparison, the whole of the international community's pledges to Afghanistan for both humanitarian and reconstruction aid for five years have amounted to a mere $5 billion—half what initial estimates said was required.
  As others have said, progress is painfully slow. There is still no effective security outside Kabul, because of the United States' consistent refusal to support an extension of ISAF—the international security assistance force—outside the capital city. There is no trained national army or police force, and anti-coalition forces are still active in one third of the country. The World Food Programme estimates that 6 million people remain vulnerable, and the Select Committee on International Development has recently reported:
  "the humanitarian crisis was far from over and there was little evidence that large scale reconstruction had taken place."
  Needless to say, there is a strong feeling among Afghans that the west is beginning to walk away. I do not include my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development in that. I know just how hard she has worked and how great her commitment to the people of Afghanistan is.
  I share the Prime Minister's aspiration for a new world order, but I do not believe that confidence can be drawn from the Afghan experience. Even less do I believe that a war in Iraq can be in the best interests of the Iraqi people. There can be no contingency humanitarian plans for those who will die. The United Nations has voted the means for solving the Iraq crisis peacefully, and that is the humanitarian response which I believe the House should make.
  3.59 pm
  Gregory Barker: Although I am glad to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sorry to say that, because of the new sitting hours of the House, I have had to leave a Standing Committee to come and join in the debate here.
  Whatever the rights and wrongs of military intervention against Iraq, it now seems sadly almost inconceivable that the march to war can be avoided. With or without the support of the country or the UN, the Prime Minister is clearly determined to topple Saddam Hussein's sadistic regime by military force. The likelihood of a war has been growing steadily since George Bush's famous "axis of evil" speech to the American Congress 12 months ago. That has been apparent to many in Parliament, to the army of pundits and observers in the media, and to the professionals involved in humanitarian relief whose job it will be to try to pick up the pieces and mitigate the potentially disastrous humanitarian situation that could quickly develop following the outbreak of hostilities.
  1070
  However, for many months it has seemed extraordinary that the one person in the Government specifically tasked with making preparations for just such a humanitarian crisis has singularly failed to set before the House a coherent strategy for dealing with the direct effects of military intervention by the Government. That is despite the fact that the Cabinet has mobilised more than 25,000 service personnel and dispatched to the middle east the largest naval taskforce since the Falklands war. For all this time, the Secretary of State for International Development has sat on her hands and stonewalled any inquiry. Despite the intensive military preparations, it is clear that the Cabinet has chosen to close its eyes to the inevitable consequences of its plans for the conflict that will surely come to pass.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), the shadow Secretary of State for International Development, has repeatedly called on the Secretary of State to publish her Department's preparations for a possible war. She has been met with total silence. The right hon. Lady earlier pleaded that she had not been able to secure a debate in Government time to explain her plans, but she has had ample opportunity to set them out in response to the numerous written questions seeking answers to the matter.
  Last week, on 22 January, the Secretary of State simply stonewalled in response to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), who was seeking a statement on what specific assessment she had made of the humanitarian consequences of a war in Iraq. She said:
  "My Department is considering a wide range of contingencies, which take into account the current humanitarian situation in Iraq."—[Official Report, 22 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 307W.]
  That was a pathetic answer. With the drums of war beating ever louder and the prospects of a peaceful resolution of the Iraqi problem receding by the day, it would appear profoundly irresponsible and deeply reprehensible so woefully to ignore what the rest of the world can see so plainly. The consequences of our inaction now could be unnecessary suffering and even death on a biblical scale.
  The Secretary of State must pull her head out of the sand and engage with the non-governmental organisations and other humanitarian organisations without delay. Moreover, she must make a proper and full statement to the House of Commons on a regular basis, rather than be dragged here by an Opposition motion. In that way, her proposed course of action, or lack of it, can be properly scrutinised by the House. She and the rest of the Government must be held properly accountable to Parliament.
  The range of issues screaming out to be addressed is vast, and I shall not attempt to deal with them all today. However, I and many others would like to know, for example, that, in the event of military intervention in Iraq, electricity supplies will not be attacked where that would have a disproportionate impact on civilian needs, including the power for water and sanitation.
  Clare Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Gregory Barker: I will give way to the Secretary of State, although she was very reluctant to give way to me.
  Clare Short: Now that we have heard what the hon. Gentleman has to say, I wonder if it was worth it. The

  1071
  hon. Gentleman might not be the most intellectually gifted Member of the House, but he might be able to understand that the military are not willing to share their military scenarios with people like him. We therefore cannot share those scenarios with the House. I have outlined the risks, but what the hon. Gentleman is asking for is foolish. He is not serious in what he is saying.
  Gregory Barker: That is absolute nonsense. We are asking the Secretary of State to engage with non-governmental organisations and to talk to the people on the ground who are taking the risks and who would deal with the humanitarian disaster on the front line. When we talk with NGO representatives, they scream out that the right hon. Lady simply is not engaging with them, meeting people, holding talks, or undertaking the consultation that is vital if a humanitarian crisis is to be avoided.
  Clare Short: Stupid little boy.
  Gregory Barker: The Secretary of State knows very, very well what I am saying. She has hidden her head in the sand because she cannot face the possibility that her Labour Government will go to war on the very issue over which she resigned from the shadow Cabinet back in 1990. Political expediency has prevented her from taking on responsibilities that she knows she should fulfil.
  Dr. Murrison: Does my hon. Friend share my disquiet at some deeply worrying comments made recently by people in non-governmental organisations? In particular, individuals at Imperial College London and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine have commented on the lack of liaison between them and military organisations in this country and elsewhere, particularly following the Secretary of State's remarks that our military preparation for humanitarian aid in Iraq is just getting going.
  Gregory Barker: I completely share those concerns and shall allude later to a letter that 500 students and academics from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine have written to two medical journals.
  Have the Government made representations to our American allies about the protection of water and sanitation supplies in the event of military intervention in Iraq? What discussions have they had about food security? What evaluation has the Secretary of State made of the continuance of the UN's oil-for-food programme in the event of war with Iraq? If that programme is suspended, what will be the impact on the food needs of the civilian population? It is estimated that 49 per cent. of families in Iraq do not earn enough money to meet basic needs and 20 per cent. live in extreme poverty. According to the World Food Programme, malnutrition is widespread among children outside Baghdad.
  This morning, Julian Filochowski, director of the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, told my researcher that for the two thirds of the population who depend on UN food rations, there are few, if any, coping
  1072
  mechanisms once food distribution is disrupted and water and sanitation systems collapse. Christian Aid estimates that following suspension of the oil-for-food programme, 16 million people will immediately be vulnerable to food shortages and malnutrition.
  Contingency planning for the prompt delivery of food and the effective restoration of power and sanitation is absolutely vital. If major infrastructure targets, such as power stations, are hit, as they were last time, there will be a sharp increase in the number of water-related diseases, because the Iraqi water treatment system is powered electronically. Two thirds of the rubbish in Baghdad is not collected. Cholera is rife. It will become impossible to store medical supplies, such as blood and vaccines, at appropriate temperatures. As I said, in an open letter to two leading medical journals, staff and alumni of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine warned that conflict could lead to hundreds of thousands of civilians being killed, as well as sparking famine and epidemics.
  Larry Hollingworth, the UN emergency co-ordinator who spoke at the excellent forum organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden in November, has said if there is a conflict, hundreds of thousands—even millions—of people could uproot themselves and move to rural areas of the country or try to leave Iraq. During the Gulf war, Iran, Jordan and Turkey took almost 1.8 million refugees. Iran hosts 3 million refugees, the most in the world.
  It is ironic that we know more about the contingency plans of the Government of Iran than we do about those of Her Majesty's Government. That is thanks to a recent visit to the Iran-Iraq border by Adam Leach, middle east director of Oxfam, and Paul Sherlock. From them, we know that the Iranian Government, in conjunction with Iranian Red Crescent, believe that as many as 900,000 people may flee towards Iran. What is more, that Government have already set up camps, zones and areas to cater for that contingency.
  It is appalling that it is easier to get access to the Iranian Government's contingency planning for a possible humanitarian disaster in which our Government must play a leading role than to extract information from a Minister in the House of Commons. The Iranian Government will need full assistance to cope with a further humanitarian crisis on the country's borders. Successful co-ordination between Governments, international agencies and NGOs such as Oxfam will be key to an effective response.
  There is no doubt that the architect of the misfortune of the Iraqi people is Saddam Hussein and that, free from his oppression, Iraq would be an infinitely better place for everyone. However, a heavy responsibility lies on the British Government as they weigh up the possibility of military intervention. A report by the worldwide Catholic network of aid agencies, following a visit to Iraq at the end of last year, concluded:
  "Heavy bombardments and the use of military forces will have incalculable consequences for a civil population that has already suffered so much."
  I came to the debate hoping that the Secretary of State would map out a blueprint for a humanitarian relief programme. We have been sorely disappointed; there has been not even a shred of detail, nor an apology for the lack of detail to date, and no encouragement that more will be forthcoming. There has been a great deal of hand wringing, but little else.
  4.11 pm
  Ann Clwyd: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) is not in the Chamber at present as I entirely agree with one of the points that she made. It is unfortunate, given that we are debating such an important subject, that the reforms of the House mean that many Members leave early on a Thursday afternoon. I hope that supporters of that reform will think again and that we shall have an opportunity to reverse it.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, who is also not in her place at present, has said time after time that the best scenario is that war should be avoided. Everyone in the House would agree with that sentiment; we all want to avoid war if it is at all possible.
  Aid agencies point out that
  "military action against Iraq could trigger a major humanitarian disaster".
  They call on world leaders
  "to draw back from the brink of war".
  Assessments of the humanitarian situation in Iraq are horrific, as many colleagues have pointed out. Up to 16 million people are entirely dependent on food aid, and the country's water and sanitation systems are stretched to the limit. The director of Christian Aid said:
  "We believe that peaceful alternatives to conflict are not yet exhausted. All parties have a legal—and we believe a moral—obligation to seek the peaceful resolution of this dispute through the United Nations."
  As my colleagues know, I have argued for a long time that for two decades top Iraqi officials have committed massive crimes and atrocities: genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. All those crimes have been impressively recorded by the United Nations, by the American, Kuwaiti, British and Iranian Governments and by non-governmental organisations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty, as well as Indict, which I chair.
  The former American ambassador for war crimes wrote an interesting article in the Washington Post a few months ago. He said that, throughout the Clinton Administration he had waged a
  "lonely campaign to compile the criminal record against the Iraqi regime and to seek indictments of Iraqi officials. By the end of 2000 our investigative team"—
  Indict was part of that team—
  "had amassed millions of pages of documents, resurrected an extensive archive of evidence prepared by U.S. Army lawyers and investigators during the Gulf War."
  That included our Operation Sandcastle investigations, which have never been published. The article then said that the team
  "interviewed key witnesses, and published a report and released aerial photography demonstrating Iraqi crimes against humanity.
  Yet no Iraqi official (at least 10 are of extreme interest) has ever been indicted for some of the worst crimes of the 20th century. Efforts to obtain U.N. Security Council approval for an ad hoc international criminal tribunal encountered one obstacle after another in various foreign capitals … and even within the Clinton administration"—
  1074
  people were pulling both ways in that Administration, as they appear to be in the present United States Administration.
  "The usual excuse was that a tribunal would jeopardize either the United Nations' inspections regime or its sanctions regimes. We needed Hussein's co-operation, which a criminal indictment might discourage."
  We know from the ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and now for Sierra Leone, that indictments of alleged war criminals who lead tyrannical and genocidal regimes can destroy their political careers, isolate them internationally, end their regimes and even achieve justice.
  Even at this late stage, an indictment could bring about the necessary regime change in Iraq—I believe it is necessary—and would avoid the necessity for military action. Even now, the Security Council could establish an international criminal tribunal to investigate and prosecute the Iraqi leadership. Its indictees would be subject to arrest and its creation could pave the way for UN-authorised military action later to neutralise any weapons and terrorism threats and to bring about regime change with international support.
  Gregory Barker: I am listening to the hon. Lady carefully and have great respect for her work. I am genuinely interested to know this. We have heard of the possibility that the United States would support a safe haven or place of exile for Saddam Hussein. How does the hon. Lady reconcile that possible avenue for averting conflict with the genuine and widespread support for indicting those vicious criminals?
  Ann Clwyd: It is not up to any country other than Iraq to decide that Saddam Hussein and his regime should avoid prosecution for war crimes. It is not the responsibility of the United Kingdom or the United States of America to take that decision; it is a decision for the Iraqi people. It would be wrong for us to offer Hussein a safe haven—an escape from indictment for war crimes. In fact, I asked an Iraqi friend—an Iraqi Kurd—how he would feel if that happened. His answer was, "If it happened, we would find our own way of dealing with it." It is obvious what that means. That idea ought to be hit firmly on the head. The time for offering Saddam Hussein incentives is over. He and his colleagues deserve to be indicted and the UN Security Council must disarm Iraq. At the end of the day, both justice and international security must prevail.
  My hon. Friends have often heard me talk about the work that our organisation, Indict, has been doing. They will be interested to know that only this week the Attorney-General wrote to me to announce that he has refused to grant his consent to prosecute Saddam Hussein, Tariq Aziz, Ali Hassan Al-Majid and Taha Ramadan for the crime of hostage taking during the Gulf conflict in 1990 under the Taking of Hostages Act 1982. In all those cases, he says that that is because there is "insufficient evidence" to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. I found that absolutely incredible, as do most people.
  The idea that there is not enough evidence that Saddam was responsible for taking hostages, including many British victims, is unbelievable. The Attorney-General's ruling appears to place us, and anyone who seeks his consent on controversial matters, in a

  1075
  ludicrous circular argument. The evidence is there, and there is plenty of it. We have evidence from opposition colleagues, and evidence was taken from many of the hostages during the Gulf war.
  The Attorney-General's ruling means, in effect, that we have to provide not just a prima facie case, but one based solely on the material that Indict provided. An analogy would be that, instead of reporting to the police that our car had been stolen and expecting them to investigate who was responsible, we had to detect the culprit ourselves, rule out all other possible perpetrators and then prove beyond reasonable doubt that they did it before the Attorney-General would say that it was all right to prosecute. It is absolutely ludicrous.
  The public are not stupid. They will ask who gains from this decision and why is it being taken now. Is it a coincidence that there is talk of Saddam being offered safe haven and immunity from prosecution and that it is being found, on advice from Treasury counsel, that there is insufficient evidence to proceed against him? Most hon. Members would find that incredible.
  4.21 pm
  Alistair Burt: I am pleased to have the chance to take part in this debate, which was rightly called for and ably opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). It has been characterised largely by informed and passionate comment. Following opening speeches of just such a tone, I simply ask the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) to reflect, with whatever humility she may possess, on the presumption behind her opening remarks that, simply because an hon. Member disagrees with her, is a man in a grey suit and belongs to a different party, he cannot possibly care about these matters quite as much as she does.
  Ms Oona King: Our surprise is that, during 18 years in government, the Conservative party did nothing on these issues, which are of very great concern to us.
  Alistair Burt: The hon. Lady in her inexperience makes a remark which on reflection she may regret: she should give due credit to those members of the Conservative party who filled the post of Overseas Development Minister, such as Chris Patten and Lady Chalker. In due course, the hon. Lady may care to think again. We might also watch her actions in the next few weeks, as events unfold, and see how much she cares.
  Whatever one's view of the war and the need for it, the brutal fact is that the situation of refugees in Iraq—internally displaced people—and the breakdown of structures there will not be deciding factors in whether we go to war. Although we all hope that war does not happen, it is essential to prepare for it. However, the sheer scale of the disruption anticipated should not only give pause for thought: it should give rise to some prompt and urgent preparation. It is alarming to note that the state of preparation, as so ably described by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden, seems so much poorer than was the case in the Gulf war or in Afghanistan.
  1076
  I will not linger on the current state of humanitarian affairs in Iraq, as that has already been outlined. I want to concentrate on internally displaced people and also on the countries to which they may flee. I have been in contact with Save the Children, which states that the number of internally displaced people in Iraq is already very high—somewhere between 700,000 and I million. In the event of war, up to an additional 900,000 people may be internally displaced, mainly as a result of the policies of the Government of Iraq, but also because of fighting between Kurdish factions.
  Living in shanty towns on the outskirts of towns, internally displaced people do not have access to agricultural land, food or income. They are particularly vulnerable if provisions do not reach them in conflict, and they tend to be overlooked in Government emergency assistance. Unlike refugees, IDPs do not benefit from a special protection mechanism in international law. We should ensure that we account for the vast number of insecure people within Iraq in our humanitarian contingency planning. The number of internally displaced persons will depend on the intensity of urban bombing; the intensity of street fighting; the breakdown of the food distribution system in terms of supplies; whether roads remain open and the transport means are there for safe travel; the duration of the war; and the emergency provision of water and sanitation facilities. It is hard to imagine the consequences of probably 2 million internally displaced people within Iraq. We need to be aware, however, that these displacements will be the immediate consequences of strikes on Iraq. On top of some 5.4 million people in the south of the country, according to the UN's estimate, who will need humanitarian intervention and are expected by the UN to be accessible for support, we must therefore consider catering for a further 2 million internally displaced persons.
  I hope that when the Secretary of State returns to the Chamber she will say how the Government intend to ensure that humanitarian agencies and the UNHCR are properly resourced and co-ordinated to address the potentially vast number of displaced people. Where are they likely to go? Some will flee inside the country. Many will flee to the north, which is considered safer, as the Kurds are based there. What preparations have been made in the north to cope with the influx of those from the centre and the south of Iraq? Of course, more people will flee across borders. During the Gulf war, Iran, Jordan and Turkey took most of the 1.8 million refugees. Because the aim of this war is regime change, the refugee numbers may be higher this time. United Nations estimates suggest that some 900,000 may go to Iran; up to 270,000 to Turkey; 50,000 to Jordan; and others to Syria, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. We must now ask whether those countries are prepared to offer humanitarian aid and support to the thousands of refugees who will arrive at their borders. We need to encourage them to do so by supporting them and offering funding for their efforts.
  I spoke on the telephone this morning to Deputy Foreign Minister Bak of Jordan, and I am grateful to his excellency for giving me some of his time. He said that the problem is that the situation is so uncertain. Not only does Jordan not know how many people it will receive; it does not know in what condition people will arrive. Preparation is therefore very difficult. Jordan is

  1077
  working very hard with UN agencies and with non-governmental organisations, but is looking for financial support from outside.
  Mrs. Gillan: Did my hon. Friend receive any indication today that Jordan was reluctant to discuss humanitarian contingencies, which was certainly the impression given by what the Secretary of State said earlier?
  Alistair Burt: I got no impression of that from my conversation. His excellency was very open and straightforward about the situation, and was happy to discuss things with me. He was aware that I was speaking in the House this afternoon.
  Jordan has a particular concern about water, in which it is one of the 10 poorest countries in the world. Minister Bak remarked ruefully that he would be very grateful to have in his country some of the clouds that he sees heading in our direction on the CNN weather charts at the moment. He mentioned in particular the situation affecting funding. The European Union in particular has been hesitant to announce its plans because it hopes things will not happen. The UN has also reported that it has been difficult to attract money because people hope things will not happen. He made the point that it is all very well for people far away to wait for things to happen, but that he and his country cannot afford to do so. He said that if aid arrives now and it turns out that it is not needed for the immediate consequences of war in Iraq, there is no need to worry: it can still be used to assist the 200,000 refugees from the Gulf war who are still in Jordan. I make a plea on the Minister's behalf for aid to be sent urgently to assist Jordan and, I suspect, its neighbouring countries.
  A further sadness is that it is not just a question of people fleeing safely over borders. Getting over the border in the first place is a problem if the border is mined or electrified. We recently received information that the Kuwaiti border is electrified. Are the Government aware of that?
  Refugees at or near borders, as well as internally displaced people, who cross to the three northern Governments will be severely affected by the many land mines in the area. Save the Children told us that the borders with Turkey and Iran are some of the most heavily mined in the world. UNHCR points out that there is no mine action programme or mine awareness education in the centre and south of Iraq, and that that will exacerbate the number of mine injuries. Displaced urban populations and children will be particularly unprepared for living in a mine-infested environment. How will the Government prevent vulnerable families fleeing to dangerous areas that may be mined or electrified?
  No one in the Chamber contemplates war lightly—neither the Prime Minister, who bears the greatest responsibility of his life on our behalf nor the most ordinary Back Bencher, who carries a lighter but still significant burden: the expectations and concerns of a trusting electorate. Whichever way the decision goes, the humanitarian consequences for the people of Iraq are likely to engage us for some time. They will certainly affect our excellent armed forces as they prepare for their usual constructive role in such circumstances.
  1078
  The least we can do is to engage with the circumstances of the people of Iraq and, as the Secretary of State said, assist in the recovery of their country after so many years of brutality and destruction.
  4.31 pm
  Julie Morgan: Like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other hon. Members, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the humanitarian consequences of a possible war on Iraq.
  In recent months, there has been a feeling that we are moving inevitability towards war, but I do not accept that war is inevitable. I still hope that a diplomatic solution will be found, and many hon. Members have said that we must do our utmost to prevent it from happening. The debate is important because we can set the humanitarian consequences of the war against the aims of the war, which causes me to ask: at what price war? I hope that when the Prime Minister and President Bush consider the problem at the weekend, they also weigh up the humanitarian consequences of going to war. I do not think that war is the lesser evil.
  The recent leaked UN report on the humanitarian impact of such a war shows the vulnerability of the Iraqi population, half of whom are under 14, as many hon. Members have said. The children will be most affected by a conflict. They are most affected by the regime and will suffer most. How will the international community protect them and their families? From what the United Nations says, that will be very difficult, as my right hon. Friend acknowledged, although she did assure us that the structures are being put in place. But the country is vulnerable, much more so than in 1991.
  As other hon. Members said, most of the Iraqi people depend on the Government for their basic needs. According to the World Food Programme, 80 per cent. of average Iraqi household income depends on food rations, with 60 per cent. of homes solely dependent on them, which is 16 million people. Those people will be directly affected by any disruption in food supplies, which a war will inevitably bring. Obviously, the amount of disruption will depend on which part of the country people live in. The issues are different in the north and in the south and central areas, as hon. Members said.
  My right hon. Friend said that the UN is preparing for war and considering the humanitarian consequences, but I am worried about what money is being made available in the UN. The leaked draft UN report of 7 January 2003, only three weeks ago, says that the UN agencies will not be able to reach their minimum level of readiness unless initial requirements are provided. On 7 January, no funds were available to pre-position stocks to constitute the minimal level of preparedness that the UN talks about. Is the document correct? Has there been any change in the situation since 7 January? I hope that my right hon. Friend can say whether any more money has become available since 7 January.
  In the crisis that war will bring, the UN tells us that 4.2 million children under the age of five would be highly vulnerable, as would 1 million pregnant women. At present, 30 per cent. of babies in Iraq are born with low birth weights. Only 80 per cent. of children have had the measles vaccination, and the report says that a measles

  1079
  epidemic is likely. It estimates that, in a war, 30 per cent. of under-fives would be at risk of death from malnutrition. Those figures have been given several times today, but they cannot be stated too often.
  There is still a shortage of drugs and vaccines, according to the UN, and UNICEF expects a shortage of drugs, especially antibiotics, within a month of the outbreak of war, as the population begins to suffer from diarrhoea and the other illnesses associated with the inevitable consequences of drinking water supplies being cut off in the event of war.
  Mr. Pollard: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the southern parts of Iraq in particular, many babies are still being born malformed—some with two heads—as a result of depleted uranium used in the last war? We perhaps have that to look forward to in the next one.
  Julie Morgan: I had heard that. The situation is of great concern.
  The British Government are one of the largest donors to Iraq, having given about —100 million since the Gulf war. Our aid has focused on health, sanitation and water, but still, under the present regime and with the effect of sanctions, Iraq's mortality rate in the centre and the south is 2.5 times the level recorded in 1990. Despite the slight improvement that has already been mentioned, the present situation is very bad, and it is likely to be much worse after a war is declared.
  I come now to the situation of refugees. The UN expects that up to 1.45 million refugees and asylum seekers would try to flee the country. Some countries may deny access to refugees or make them stay in camps on the borders or just inside Iraq. As the borders are mined, it is likely that there will be casualties caused by the mines, especially on the borders with Iran and Turkey. Therefore, I too wish to ask the Government what they will do to try to stop families fleeing into areas where there are mines.
  I recently visited Iran, which already has 2 million refugees from Afghanistan. We had discussions with the agencies about the plan in Iran to encourage Afghan refugees to return to Afghanistan over a period of four years. Many of them are very reluctant to go back, for reasons that have been mentioned today. Outside Kabul, they do not know what they would be going back to. That is an important point that we should bear in mind when we think that there may be many Iraqi refugees entering Iran, which has the highest population of refugees in the world.
  There will also be internally displaced people, estimated by the UN at up to 900,000, in addition to those already in Iraq. They are the most vulnerable in the world. The Save the Children Fund has briefed us on the fate of internally displaced people, who are without the established system of international protection. It has vividly described the experiences of children who have been displaced throughout the world. Many become separated from their families and are most vulnerable to sexual abuse and attack and at risk of malnutrition. These children will also lose out on education and on most of their childhood, because the problem will take many years to set right. They will not have the
  1080
  opportunity of normal play activity. Already in the centre and south of Iraq, one in three girls do not attend primary school, so there is disruption to their education. If children become internally displaced, there is a much greater chance of disruption. The protection of displaced children is a priority for the United Nations, which has produced guiding principles on such children, and it is essential that they are followed. Will my right hon. Friend do all that she can to ensure that, if war starts, the UN protocols are observed?
  I am pleased that we are having this debate. In deciding whether to go to war, we must take into consideration the humanitarian consequences. At present, I do not believe that war is justified, and everything that has been said today confirms me in that view.
  4.40 pm
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan), who posed some interesting questions that I hope the Secretary of State will have time to answer in her winding-up speech.
  First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on calling for this debate. I agree with her opening remarks and those of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). I, too, was supposed to be serving on a Committee considering secondary legislation. It was a difficult choice, but I deemed this debate more important—there is no doubt that within the next few weeks we will more likely than not be fighting a war on Iraqi soil to remove weapons of mass destruction from the hands of a brutal and vicious dictator. As my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden said in her excellent opening speech, virtually all contributions to previous debates in the House have concentrated on military operations and the justification for action. It is surprising that the Government have not placed more emphasis on the humanitarian side of the equation, and I hope that today's debate will genuinely help to strengthen the hand of the Secretary of State and give her a louder voice in Cabinet discussions.
  Dr. Murrison: Does my hon. Friend agree that the humanitarian and military effort are one and the same? The military need to prepare for what will subsequently be demanded of them. As the Secretary of State said, she is only just starting to liaise with the military so that they can take over many tasks that non-governmental organisations have said they will not do if biological or chemical agents are used in theatre.
  Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend is right, and anticipates the military angle that I hope to discuss later.
  Except for the privileged few, Iraq and its people are in pretty poor shape, as everybody has attested. Almost three quarters of the population now depend on food handouts, and child mortality has rocketed due to the combined effects of malnourishment, poor sanitation, lack of clean drinking water and grossly inadequate health care.
  Children are not the only vulnerable ones. Elderly and handicapped people and those who have been internally displaced are also living in highly precarious conditions.

  1081
  Military action itself will leave a legacy of destruction and deprivation on top of the existing humanitarian disaster. It will drive sick and starving people in their thousands through hostile conditions across the border into surrounding countries, and will displace people from their homes and separate them from family members. There is no doubt that people will die. It is therefore imperative that the House understand the Government's plans and the readiness of DFID and the relevant agencies for involvement in the difficult task of delivering swift and effective aid in a complex humanitarian emergency.
  I want to explore in the brief time available the role of the military and the pitfalls that may face them. In the past 20 years or so, they have increasingly found themselves facilitating humanitarian assistance following conflicts. Indeed, I have seen our troops in operation in Pristina and surrounding areas, where they played a major role both in peacekeeping and in helping to rebuild communities devastated by war. The military do not act in isolation—they have to deal with various agencies and organisations, all of which have different roles and responsibilities, different methods of working and different chains of command. That can lead to problems, as past experience has shown. I should like to know whether the lessons of previous humanitarian operations have been learned and whether they will be put into practice in any potential conflict.
  The first concerns assessment. In dealing with a complex humanitarian emergency, the first priority is rapid assessment to identify or even confirm needs, identify public health requirements and determine priorities and resources. Following the Gulf war, it was found that both civilian and military personnel working in Iraq were not trained in rapid public health and needs assessments or survey skills. I believe that the MOD and DFID have undertaken efforts to train both civilian and military personnel in those vital and basic skills. If so, may we have the details? Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the training so far has been sufficient?
  A second issue that arose was the poorly defined role of the military, which contributed to co-ordination problems. What has the Department done to ensure that better communication between agencies and the military will be facilitated in the field during the humanitarian phase of the operation? Such was the failure of preparation that the aid efforts were even hampered by workers and military personnel being unable to speak the same language or the local language. What language training has been carried out for our NGOs and our forces?
  Thirdly, political barriers to effective aid delivery were encountered in the last Gulf conflict. The western relief programme, Operation Haven, for the displaced Kurdish population was not as successful as it might have been. The refugees were restricted to high, cold and exposed mountain slopes, with poor sanitation and water supplies. The mortality rate was consequently high, and even though the public health needs strongly indicated the need for a rapid move, probably to a position over the Turkish border, that was not possible. Turkey was having its own internal political problems with the Kurdish nationalist movement, and some commentators have speculated that that may have been why the refugees could not be moved to more suitable
  1082
  terrain. There is no doubt that many people died from the harsh conditions, and would not have died, had they been moved to suitable areas.
  What has the Secretary of State done to ensure that suitable sites have been identified in Iraq or the surrounding countries, and what discussions have taken place or are planned to take place, particularly with Turkey, to reduce the likelihood of the situation being repeated? We need to be able to guarantee that political expediency does not take precedence over epidemiological evidence.
  Fourthly, the western relief programme was hampered by the absence of the UNHCR and its usual co-ordination role because its mandate did not cover internally displaced people. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether that is still the case, or whether it will be able to play a full role in any relief programme, irrespective of the status of the people?
  Practical issues have arisen in other humanitarian relief operations and I should be grateful if the right hon. Lady could address these. Initially, in Goma in 1994, the military rather than an NGO such as Oxfam was required to provide a clean water supply for more than 50,000 refugees from neighbouring Rwanda. The military personnel faced huge technical problems for which they were not well equipped, and within eight days, a cholera epidemic raged through the camp, killing more than 30,000 refugees. In the end, at the height of the epidemic, more then 100 NGOs and 50 military contingents were working together. The UNHCR had no control over them, and when the final analysis took place, it was discovered that the military interventions were six times more expensive than the NGO interventions, and of course their presence in this instance exacerbated the co-ordination problems in the field. Can the Secretary of State reassure me that the lessons from Goma have been taken on board, and that only well-equipped personnel with appropriate equipment and training will be used in any humanitarian aid programme in Iraq?
  Also in Rwanda, a small military contingent set up a field hospital for the refugees in Gikongoro and after a few weeks passed the operation over to NGOs. Although the military had provided superb medical and surgical care, it was found that the death rate among the refugees was more than eight per 1,000 per day, which is far above the accepted norm of 0.5 per 1,000 per day. Post-event analysis showed that although the medical care was excellent, the military had not recognised that the lack of shelter, water and sanitation was a priority, and the resulting public health problems had caused the high mortality. They had been focused on the priorities that they had rightly identified through their military training—that is, treating the wounded—and had failed to appreciate the public health implications. Inadvertently, they had added a dimension to the problems and many refuges died from common communicable diseases before it was even realised.
  There are many other examples where the best intentions have not resulted in the best outcomes. I should like some reassurances, in particular that DFID has addressed the poor training and inadequate preparedness of personnel, the inadequate understanding of public health problems and priorities, the variable quality and poor targeting of aid, the

  1083
  political override of epidemiological needs, and the lack of co-ordination of military and civilian or NGO operations.
  In addition, I would like to know what the MOD has done on those issues and about equipment, training, liaison with NGOs and civilians, cost-effectiveness studies and command structures during the aid phase. Military contingents have a role in humanitarian aid programmes, but those issues need to be addressed. The one thing that the military hate is dual tasking. Therefore, I should also like an assurance that there will be a follow-on military contingent to provide appropriate aid and security following any conflict.
  We all hope that war will be avoided, but that depends on the actions of Saddam Hussein. We in this House need to know in the eventuality of war that we are well prepared to help the people of Iraq. The Secretary of State has so far disappointed us with her responses, but she will have another opportunity at the end of the debate to give the reassurances that we require. I hope that she will take that opportunity.
  4.50 pm
  Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: I wish to make colleagues on both sides of the House aware of a letter that I wrote this week to the Prime Minister. It states:
  "Dear Tony,
  I write to you on a matter of real urgency at a time when so much concern is focused on the work of the United Nations weapons inspectors and when public opposition is growing against military action and the perceived reasons for taking such action. We have in my view little need to look for new weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as a trigger for action when there is already so much evidence of their use against the Kurds.
  I am a good friend of Professor Christine Gosden, Professor of Medical Genetics at Royal Liverpool University Hospital Department of Pathology. She is also a nationally and internationally renowned individual, her reputation mainly focused in the area of weapons of mass destruction. Professor Gosden and her professional colleagues throughout the world meet regularly to discuss"
  problems associated with WM D
  "and the medical response to the deployment of chemical and biological weapons in Northern Iraq. She and I are meeting with representatives of the Foreign Office to discuss the funding of several small projects in the area. However, we are both desperately concerned about a number of specific issues about which she has provided me with much reliable, verifiable and disturbing information, some of which I now summarise.
  It seems likely that Saddam Hussein may currently be using weapons of chemical mass destruction against the population including Pesh mergas of Northern Iraq, members of the CIA, and MI6 throughout Iraq, as well as aid workers and Government officials who are working on plans to establish an administration after the current regime has been disposed of. However, what we do know is that WMD have been used against the population in Northern Iraq on a wider scale than has been recognised and may currently be a threat to the population in clandestine use including that in food and water supplies. The agents carried by these mediums may include aflatoxin, anthrax, small pox, plague, botulinum toxin, toxic radioactive waste, radiation weapons, and ricin. In addition, Professor Gosden believes that Saddam may even be infecting people in prison and then releasing them to mingle with members of their indigenous community, spreading such diseases as small pox and the plague. Whilst there is as yet no direct evidence of these latter practices, there are several reliable reports about experiments using prisoners to determine the human effects of ricin, and the contamination of water supplies.
  1084
  My main concern is that we (as a primary aid giver to and possible invader of Iraq) are currently incapable of assessing the risks to the population by measuring the extent to which these agents are now being deployed there. What is certainly known, however, is that deaths are increasing in all age groups and that the diseases and genetic conditions exhibited by the Iraqis derive from interactions with various highly toxic agents. The levels of cancer, range of cancers, genetic and chromosomal defects exhibited by the people exceeds that exhibited by any normal population, but is matched by communities that fall within chemical and nuclear disaster areas, such as Bhopal and Chernobyl.
  I am very concerned that we lack sufficient information about the consequences of chemical and biological weapons and that this paucity of knowledge will leave us ill-prepared to deal with the health problems of the people of Northern Iraq and battle troops if and when we invade the country. Professor Gosden and her team have developed a chemical and biological testing and treatment programme that needs to be implemented quickly to protect invading allied troops and Iraqi civilians from chemical and biological attacks. There is obviously an immediate benefit associated with this proposed programme for the indigenous people involved, but far more importantly the data collected from the testing programme would be of inestimable value for British and American intelligence and military planning agencies.
  Unless you can assure me to the contrary, Christine is unaware of any agency carrying out such studies in the area of Northern Iraq at this time. Since this is one of the highest risk areas for the deployment of chemical and biological weapons, it is surprising that apparently no attention is being given to analysing the ongoing health effects of the previous extensive use of weapons of mass destruction on the people of the region. You will know that, under sanctions, few aid agencies now have licences allowing them to provide support for the people of the region. Have you carried out any analyses to determine the preparedness of these agencies to deal with the aftermath of the possible war with potentially millions of victims, including military personnel and aid workers, subjected to cocktails of biological and chemical weapons? Furthermore, has consideration been given to extending the list of aid agencies, who are allowed to deliver aid into the area, and how are these agencies being briefed and made ready for the task that may face them?
  I am concerned that the existing structures responsible for providing health care and relief in Iraq are inadequate. There is a very real fear that some personnel involved with W.H.O. and the U.N., (because they have to work through Bagdad government departments), have become part of the regime that denies health care to the Iraqi population. The aid agencies operating in that area have virtually no diagnostic provisions or facilities and possess limited resources for treatment of illnesses related to poisonous weapons. Meanwhile the US and military agencies who are responsible for undertaking the task of conflict and post-conflict planning for health provision have no experience of the cultural and social networks that exist on the ground and which would improve the effectiveness of any care and health provision they might offer. They are by definition war professionals, not health professionals, and they therefore lack the skills and resources to deal with the people appropriately, especially in view of the large population of Moslem women to whom on religious and cultural grounds they would be denied access.
  I support this argument by referring you to the situation in Afghanistan and the former Yugoslavia, where the military are still providing significant levels of post-conflict support. It is a matter of record that in the aftermath of those particular conflicts there are now dramatically increased disability and mortality rates amongst the indigenous populations, especially mothers and babies. Clearly the environment that our troops and allies may face in Iraq will be unprecedented in comparison to these previous theatres of war, and the problems that they face thus far greater.
  In this context, I would like to ask you what action has been taken in relation to the following.
  Has the Ministry of Defence developed strategies with medical teams from the UK and across the world with expertise with weapons of mass destruction to enable proper testing to be carried out in the region.

  1085
  What is being done to provide medical assistance for those in danger in the region, such as supplies of antibiotics for potential plague and anthrax attacks, and bleach for attacks using biological agents and chemical agents such as VX, ricin and mustard gas.
  What are we providing for the current investigations into the effects of weapons of mass destruction on civilian populations, with particular and sensitive reference to both Islamic culture and the fears of the people.
  What support should we be giving to initiatives for the research and implementation of conflict recovery strategies for populations ravaged by modern conflicts, embodying modern technological, molecular and therapeutic modalities that are sensitive to the culture of the people in conflict zones.
  In conclusion, I would wish clearly to state that, as a pragmatist, I continue to accept the probable necessity of the forthcoming conflict with Saddam Hussein, and that I am relieved that we are finally settling to the task of removing this clearly deranged and murderous man. I regret, however, that the justification to do so appears, at least in the public's perception, to have arisen as a consequence of US policy and its perceived preoccupation with economic and oil-based arguments rather than flowing from what should be our own government's concern for humanitarian and moral issues—and indeed that we did not argue for this type of humanitarian intervention for this population damaged and killed by WMD many many years ago."
  4.58 pm
  Mr. Simon Thomas: I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this debate, even though I, too, have had to give up on a Standing Committee in order to be here. We were debating whether Rupert Murdoch should own Channel 5, but this is a far more important debate for the House, which I hope will colour the decision on whether we go to war. The humanitarian aspect of any war in Iraq is surely part of considering whether we go to war, and I hope to make a few comments along those lines. I should like to say at the outset that I am receiving reports of very bad weather in mid-Wales, so if I have to miss the winding-up speeches, I hope that the Secretary of State will understand why. It will mean that I can get the earlier train, so that it will take me six hours instead of seven to get home. We shall see.
  I am pleased that the Conservative party tabled the motion, because on the whole we have had a good-tempered, well-ordered and informative debate. However, there is one aspect that I should like to discuss. We have talked tangentially about the effect of economic sanctions on Iraq, but we have not considered whether the humanitarian situation in today's Iraq, or in post-conflict Iraq, would be better or worse if those sanctions were lifted or of a different nature. I want to read out a short newspaper story from The Guardian of 14 April 1990, which said:
  "The Government has informally relaxed the arms sanctions it imposed during the eight-year Iran-Iraq war in its efforts to ensure that Britain is not left out of the international drive to re-equip the Iraqi regime."
  That was the then Conservative Government taking the opportunity, for trade reasons, to relax the arms embargo on Iraq. I want to turn that on its head to ask, in all seriousness, whether we are doing the right thing for the citizens of Iraq by maintaining economic sanctions, and whether we should have considered that at an earlier stage, when many hon. Members said that we should be doing so. We must face up to the reality that although the dreadful humanitarian situation that
  1086
  pertains in Iraq is mainly the result of Saddam Hussein's actions, it is partly because one of the tools of our policy in Iraq has been to keep the civilian population living a pretty miserable existence in the hope that they would overthrow the regime in their own time and in their own ways. That remains one of the unspoken aspects of the sanctions regime and the current situation in Iraq.
  Many hon. Members mentioned the humanitarian situation. I shall not reiterate all those facts and figures, but leave them to speak on the record. We have heard that 1 million children under five have chronic malnutrition, that fewer than half the homes in Iraq have access to piped and clean water, that a third of the power supply is still down, and that between 60 and 75 per cent. of the population are dependent on food aid. That is the situation now, 10 years after a very limited conflict that did not take troops into the major part of Iraq itself, and which certainly did not target the regime or try to overthrow it. I ask hon. Members to imagine, in the context of the conflict that we are facing, the situation after an all-out war in Iraq, especially if we were forced to go into Baghdad or to use air power to take it. It is important to remember that Iraq was once, and still could be, a thoroughly modern country with a proper infrastructure in terms of water supply, electricity supply, education, a health service—
  Clare Short: I know that we are short of time, but I want to respond to the hon. Gentleman, because he may not be here later. Sanctions were imposed by the UN at the end of the war on the assumption that Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons would be dismantled quickly, sanctions would be lifted and the country would return to normal. Instead, Saddam Hussein retained those weapons. That is the dilemma that the world faces. Saying that we should remove the sanctions because the Iraqi people have suffered is the same as saying that Saddam Hussein can do what he likes. I am afraid that it is not as simple as that. The UK has worked for the simplification of the sanctions regime so that nearly everything can be traded, and only things that could be used militarily are banned, but that has proved difficult. The UN expected a brief sanctions regime, the dismantling of weapons and a thriving Iraq—it was Saddam Hussein who was not willing to go for that.
  Mr. Thomas: I accept the burden of the Secretary of State's comments. She is right to make those points. However, eight or nine years after the Gulf war, we realised that the sanctions regime was not working and that it did not put the right pressure on Saddam Hussein to make him do what we expected. We should have reconsidered it. I accept that the Labour Government did what they could to reform it, but if I have time, I shall mention one or two aspects that need further consideration.
  Iraq is a modern state, and its resources mean that it could become a powerhouse in the middle east. In that context, the position that people face, especially young people and children, is dreadful.
  I want to concentrate on water supply. The Department's policy emphasises water, and one of the few successes of the world summit in Johannesburg was an international agreement on water. It is dreadful to contemplate what might happen post conflict in Iraq.

  1087
  The water supply currently fails to reach the majority of homes, and 65 per cent. of the water that does reach homes is untreated. After air strikes, matters will be even worse.
  It was pointed out in an earlier intervention that dual-use material such as electric power generators could be utilised for military and civilian purposes. There is continuing discussion about several hundred small rural-based generators for water supply. Under the current sanctions regime, the UN has not given them the go-ahead.
  The Secretary of State referred to the oil-for-food programme. Clearly, the regime uses it as a tool to oppress its people. However, the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs estimates that approximately 15 million people in Iraq depend on food aid and the oil-for-food programme. I appreciate that if the Secretary of State is winding up as well as opening the debate, she may have kept some of her powder dry. I hope that she will say more about the preservation of such programmes in a conflict and whether more can be delivered to the people of Iraq.
  I want to consider our armed forces' actions in Iraq. If we go to war, we hope that they will act in a humanitarian way as far as that is possible within military constraints. I am especially worried that our forces may be under direct United States control and that weapons that we do not countenance, such as landmines, cluster bombs and depleted uranium may be used. The Geneva conventions provide that
  "any objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population"
  must not be targeted and that no military actions should be taken that
  "leave the civilian population with such inadequate food or water as to cause its starvation or force its movement."
  I hope that that will be taken into account, not only in this debate, but in other defence debates and any decision to go to war.
  I strongly believe that we can avert a humanitarian disaster in Iraq by avoiding war. I accept that the prime responsibility for that rests with Saddam Hussein, but the House and the country also have a responsibility. We must grant more time for the UN inspectors to do their work. We must not jump to conclusions simply because somebody finds a nerve gas suit or a biological or chemical suit. That does not mean that Iraq will use such weapons. We must allow enough time.
  We must bear down on Saddam Hussein and the current regime and we must ensure that we go through the United Nations. The Secretary of State always emphasises the UN. I hope that she will give her view on actions without UN approval. My party and I would not approve of that.
  We must avoid polluting the UN through browbeating it into going along with conflict in Iraq. Whatever the final decision, we must ensure that the UN is seen to be the international arbiter so that all countries, including Arab countries, continue to have faith in it and do not perceive it as a tool of US policy.
  I hope that those comments will be considered not only in the context of humanitarian aid, but in our decision about whether to go to war with Iraq.
  5.9 pm
  Ms Oona King: I welcome this debate on humanitarian contingency plans for Iraq, and I am grateful to the Conservatives for their interest in this critically important area, although in my view that is almost as surprising as Dracula securing a debate on blood transfusions for haemophiliacs. I note that the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) made a somewhat personal attack on me. What he does not seem to grasp is that my attack on the Conservatives is not personal at all; indeed, I had a meeting this morning with Baroness Chalker, one of the most intelligent and sincere people ever to grace the Conservative Benches.
  I am not looking at Conservative Members' personal qualities; I am looking at their record. Eighteen years in office and what did they do? They cut aid to the world's poorest people and linked it to trade. That is the record. It is a shameful legacy, which this Labour Government have consigned to the dustbin of history. I would be very happy to leave it there, if only Tory MPs would stop acting as though they ever did anything useful when it mattered: when they were in power.
  Alistair Burt: If that is the hon. Lady's view, perhaps she might enlighten us as to the tone of her conversation with Baroness Chalker this morning.
  Ms King: I am an executive member of the newly formed all-party group on Africa, which the hon. Gentleman is very welcome to join. However, he might also want to think about a reconciliation and truth commission within the Tory party, in order to come to terms with its shameful past on this subject.
  How urgent are our efforts to prevent blood being spilt, and to minimise any civilian casualties? Our first and foremost aim must obviously be to minimise the loss of human life. For the purposes of the current debate on Iraq, there are four possible causes of loss of life, all of which are more or less interlinked: first, military action; secondly, the development and use of chemical and biological weapons; thirdly, the poverty that faces most developing countries in that region; and fourthly—a particularly lethal cause of loss of life—Saddam Hussein himself.
  The latter is not a flippant point. I made the same point during a debate on sanctions in Iraq some years ago, and it was eloquently restated today by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). The worst infant mortality and malnutrition in Iraq is in areas under Saddam Hussein's control. In northern, Kurdish-controlled areas of Iraq, which face greater sanctions and shortages, loss of life is less. Saddam Hussein kills more Iraqi children than anyone else, but that does not mean we can abdicate our responsibilities to those same children. Saddam Hussein has built and used chemical and biological weapons, but that does not mean we can abdicate our responsibilities towards the prospects for their future use.
  The dilemma that we face is that if we permit the development of chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons, at some point we are inviting a terrible loss of human life. Yet if we take military action to disarm Iraq and enforce UN resolution 1441, we risk a more immediate loss of life. For this reason, it is my

  1089
  fervent, although perhaps futile, wish that we avoid military action. None the less, the decision rests with Saddam Hussein: it is up to him whether he wishes to do what he has been requested to do by the UN.
  So I agree with the Government's actions so far. Threatening Saddam Hussein with military force has been the single most effective thing that we have done in the past 11 years to get him to accept UN authority. And it is UN authority that is at stake. I trust that the UN will be given more time to carry out its work. If military action is taken, humanitarian risks are grave. As we have heard, 16 million people rely on food aid through the oil-for-food programme. That is 60 per cent. of the Iraqi population.
  Other humanitarian risks that have been set out include regional factionalism and bloodletting—we have seen terrible examples of that in Afghanistan, post conflict—risks to sanitation facilities; the deliberate or inadvertent use of chemical and biological weapons; and the terrible legacy of land mines and cluster bombs. Will the Secretary of State make representations—perhaps she has already done so—to the Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister to ensure that those types of weapons are not used? Will she also let us know what further humanitarian aid the British Government are making available to Iraqi civilians? It might come as a surprise to people to hear that the British Government are one of the largest donors to Iraq, and that since the Gulf war we have committed nearly £100 million for water, sanitation and basic health provision. We also run a programme to help Iraqi refugees in Iran.
  However, the worst-case scenarios facing Iraqi civilians as a result of military action could dwarf the terrible problems that they have faced so far. That is why any military action must take account of humanitarian risks, perhaps in a way that challenges current military thinking. In the past, the vulnerability of the civilian population has not usually been at the top of the military's agenda—but if it is not at the top of the agenda this time, I have no doubt that the military will win the battle but lose the war.
  Half of Iraq's population are children under 14. If we do not protect those children, all the military hardware in the world will not protect us from the justifiable anger of the Muslim world—indeed, from the anger of all those who hold sacred the value of human life. This Government are renowned for having developed one of the world's most effective humanitarian programmes. For that reason, we have a responsibility to make every possible effort to ensure that humanitarianism is at the top of the international community's agenda.
  5.16 pm
  John Barrett: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I shall echo some of the points that have already been made, but I also hope to raise a few issues that have not been raised so far.
  This is not the time to debate whether Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, United Nations approval, or even the importance of a substantive vote in the House—although many people, like me, are mystified by the Prime Minister's reaction to questions about a substantive vote in this place. If George Bush phones the Prime Minister and says, "We
  1090
  need to go to war now"—as he might—surely it is in everyone's interests, including those of the troops, to ensure that the Government and the Prime Minister have heard the views of the House first. The public are asking questions about the military action that will be taken in their name, and the House is not giving them the answers. I hope that that will be a debate for another day.
  What is at hand today is something that I believe the people of this country are deeply concerned about, as has been shown by the speeches that hon. Members have already made—something that, in the heat of the military debate, is in danger of being lost. The humanitarian consequences of military strikes in Iraq are nothing short of frightening. A high-impact scenario was suggested in the recent UN report, which said that military action could
  "result in a complete breakdown of state capacities and possibly civil war … This will trigger large scale internal and external population movements as well as massive humanitarian needs. Agencies' ability to respond would be severely limited for an extended period."
  Before we even think about the potential problems in Iraq after a conflict, it is important to stress the humanitarian situation now, before the first official bomb has been dropped—I understand that bombing in some areas has already started, and is being carried out with increasing regularity. The situation on the ground in Iraq is horrifying.
  Last week, I was fortunate enough to meet representatives of Save the Children, and they backed up much of the information that I had already received on this subject. The figures, which many Members have already mentioned, speak for themselves. Malnourishment and diarrhoea mean that Iraq is suffering the fastest increasing child mortality in the world: 10 per cent. of Iraqi children now die before their first birthday. As other Members have said, according to the World Food Programme, 16 million Iraqi people—60 per cent. of the population—are now wholly dependent on food aid. To put that figure in some perspective, the number of people who are now hungry in Iraq is roughly equivalent to the number who are in a similar situation in Zimbabwe, Zambia, Swaziland, Malawi, Mozambique and Lesotho all added together.
  Put simply, Iraq is unable to feed its own people, because of drought and the bureaucratic system of food distribution used by the Iraqi state authorities. The food going into Iraq is insufficient, and careful consideration will have to be given to how we shall help the innocent and the starving if military action commences. It is surely without question that any military action would further disrupt that food distribution, and probably stop it altogether. If conflict were to begin, Iraq's neighbours would likely close their borders and the UN oil-for-food programme would effectively end.
  However, food is not the only problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) said, Iraq's basic infrastructure is crumbling, with 50 per cent. of the sewage treatment plants not working. The water and sanitation systems that are left depend on the supply of electricity but, 12 years after the Gulf war, it is estimated that one third of the national power supply is still down.
  Iraq is a country in serious poverty. That is one reason why I find it incredible that we might create yet another humanitarian disaster, when the UK and the

  1091
  international community already have to deal with countless other disasters across the globe. A number of speakers have already outlined the situation in Zambia, Malawi, Ethiopia and Eritrea, but we are seriously talking about adding to the list. If military action does take place, that is what will happen. Are not the development budgets of the United States, Europe and Britain stretched enough already? Will they be able to cope with anything more?
  The contingency plan of the UN office for the co-ordination of humanitarian affairs admits the financial restraints that already exist. It states:
  "UN agencies have been facing severe funding constraints that are preventing them from reaching even minimum levels of preparedness. As a consequence, the current response capacity of the UN system remains well below the critical requirements established through the inter-agency planning process."
  The Secretary of State—for whom I have the utmost respect—does not want there to be civilian casualties. Of course she wants to avoid unnecessary deaths and inflicting yet more suffering on a population already suffering from misery, hunger and disease. I believe the right hon. Lady when she says that the British Government would be there to help people rebuild their lives. However, the Government's good intentions are not enough. We can all remember vividly how the Government said, in 2001, that they would help rebuild Afghanistan when the conflict there was over. They are making efforts to do just that, but the situation in Afghanistan is far from being a good-news story. Much of the country has reverted to the status that it occupied before the campaign against terrorism. Most of the country outside Kabul is under the control of warlords, and poppies that will become heroin on our streets are still being grown in the fields. Afghanistan is far from being a rebuilt nation.
  Last week, the Select Committee on International Development, of which I am a member, published a report on the reconstruction of Afghanistan. In paragraph 86, it stated:
  "Afghanistan is a completely wrecked land, with no institutions that work, no legitimate economy, no legitimate economy, no order of security and serious capacity shortfalls within Government."
  The report showed that there are still immense problems in Afghanistan. Before the Prime Minister and the Government consider their next military campaign, they must not forget that there is unfinished business from the previous campaign.
  I have seen no evidence to convince me that this country should go to war with Iraq. I can understand that, under certain circumstances, such action may have to be taken, but my view today is that war is not desirable, necessary nor inevitable. In my relatively short time as a Member of Parliament, more of my constituents have contacted me about Iraq than about any other issue. I do not take it to be a wholly representative sample, but I have not yet received a single letter, or spoken to one person in Edinburgh, West who believes that this country should be involved in military action at this time. Other hon. Members have told the House on a number of occasions of similar experiences, and I believe that that is very significant.
  1092
  I hope that the Government accept that a great deal more work will have to be done to convince a large number of hon. Members, and I believe the resounding majority of people in this country, that force should be used in their name, especially given the major impact that such force would undoubtedly have on ordinary innocent Iraqi civilians—on men and women, on young and old, but mostly on children.
  I hope that we do not go to war. Unfortunately, I fear that the decision may have been taken already. The humanitarian consequences of war in Iraq would last a generation. Today in Vietnam, children are still being born deformed or stillborn, without palates or chins, as a result of the effects of the agent orange dioxin—a weapon of mass destruction if ever there was one. If military action is taken, I hope that the UK Government will live up to their promise to make every effort to minimise civilian casualties and to help the people who definitely do not hold chemical weapons, pose any threat to this country or deserve further misery, but who will undoubtedly suffer most should military action be taken.
  5.24 pm
  Glenda Jackson: I, too, welcome the opportunity to debate Iraq and the possibility of war. I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) a sense of stupefaction at the Conservative amendment on the Order Paper—
  Mr. Alan Duncan: It's the motion.
  Glenda Jackson: The motion on the Order Paper.
  I find it difficult to believe that the Conservative party, which spent 20 years behaving as though there were no such thing as a humanitarian act either at home or abroad, should choose to use the possibility of a war—a war in which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) pointed out, thousands on thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians will probably lose their lives—to make party political points.
  Attempting to condemn my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is nothing less than shameful—albeit hardly surprising. The Conservative party when in government reduced aid year on year. We have heard much from Conservative Members of their concern about possible humanitarian damage, the special needs of children and the appalling situation for refugees if they flee across borders. They have asked my right hon. Friend what plans she has to ensure that the worst humanitarian catastrophe does not take place. Yet one of their number referred to refugees who are still in camps in Jordan following the Kuwait war. If memory serves me correctly, the Conservatives were in office for six years after that; why did they not have a humanitarian plan?
  We also heard much concern about the possibility of refugees escaping from the war and having to cross minefields. I am prepared to bet a sizeable amount of money that the mines were sold by the Conservative Government who year after year spent public money to advertise and encourage the sale of British weapons to developing nations at fairs that British citizens were not allowed to attend even as they paid for them.
  Alistair Burt: The hon. Lady referred to my remarks about Jordan and refugees. I asked a junior Foreign

  1093
  Office Minister about that this morning, and the refugees still in Jordan have in fact been assimilated into Jordanian society rather than remaining in refugee camps. I thought it would be helpful to make the hon. Lady aware of that.
  Glenda Jackson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for setting his own record straight. I understand that the refugees in Iran have not been assimilated.
  I have made my position abundantly clear on the possibility of war with Iraq, and I will continue to do so. One argument advanced by the Conservative party today for war on Saddam Hussein was the obvious one about weapons of mass destruction. Another was his appalling human rights record. I was interested to hear that argument from a party that did nothing about—indeed, encouraged British businesses to invest in—Burma, whose regime was one of the most appalling in the world. I was touched by the Conservatives' concern that Iraqi oil must be the preserve of Iraqi people. They did not have the same attitude towards Nigeria or Burma. It is nice to know that they may be beginning to change, but I will always have my doubts about that, and I regret to say that my suspicions have been confirmed this afternoon.
  It was left to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford and other Members on the Labour Benches to set out clearly, using well-informed and well-researched evidence, the absolute disaster that a war on Iraq would be for the innocent civilians of Iraq. There is no guarantee that any military action would kill or even capture Saddam Hussein.
  It is absurd to persist in the blithe belief that, at the end of a war that would undoubtedly be won by the most powerful nation in the world, a marvellous democratic Iraqi Government would be waiting in the wings, ready to slot into place. Reference has already been made to the international community keeping faith on its promises to Afghanistan. It is doubtful—or at least extremely debatable—that the international community will stay in Iraq for the length of time necessary to bring about democratic government that will have the support and loyalty of the Iraqi people.
  We do not have the right to engage in what will clearly be murder, and which will leave the most terrible legacy for generations of Iraqi civilians, without hard, verifiable evidence not only that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction but that he is able to deliver them against the United Kingdom, which is an absurd idea. Even more absurd is the idea that he could actually deliver them against the mainland of the United States.
  Both our Government and the American Administration are floating the idea that a further reason for the removal of Saddam Hussein is that he may have—they are beginning to move away from "he has"—clear links with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. However, before we move to an actual shooting war, evidence for that should be presented not only to the House, the American Senate and the peoples of the world but also to the United Nations.
  I would dispute whether it was exclusively the threat of violence and attack that got the UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq, but even if one accepts that, they are there. What do the inspectors ask for? They ask
  1094
  for more time. This morning, I heard an interview on the radio with the UN inspector with responsibility for examining the possibility that there are nuclear weapons in Iraq or the capacity to create a nuclear programme. He was categorical: the inspectors need at least five more months. Hans Blix has also asked for more time. That time should be given to the UN inspectors, and our Government and the American Administration should stop hiding behind the excuse that it is all up to Saddam Hussein. It is up to the United Nations; it should be the will of the United Nations.
  Resolution 1441 was passed unanimously. That should inform what happens over the next few months. However, the inspectors will not be afforded the time they need and I freely admit to cynicism when I say that that will not be because there are weapons of mass destruction nor because everyone is so outraged at that evil dictator, but because there is a window of opportunity for troops. If troops are not on the ground by the end of February, the weather will become infinitely too hot for them to fight effectively in protective clothing. That seems to be the trigger.
  A few moments ago I was standing in the Corridor—there was no one there but me. How dare we sit in this calm, quiet, panelled Chamber and have the audacity to make decisions that will be death for people thousands of miles away? We do not know them; they do not know us. We cannot take such actions without taking every opportunity and every diplomatic avenue to prevent a war.
  5.33 pm
  Mr. Alan Duncan: I apologise to the House if I appear slightly bleary-eyed this evening. I stepped off a plane from the United States only this morning, having sat in the Security Council in New York on Monday and having spent Tuesday and Wednesday in Washington seeing members of the Administration. They do not have a gung-ho attitude; there is serious consideration of what might unfold, especially in relation to the humanitarian matters to which our motion is devoted. I am sorry that some speakers in the debate have not, in everything that they said, devoted themselves to those matters.
  I think that we can see the most likely course of events. I hope that there will be a second resolution—I think that there will. We shall see Secretary of State Colin Powell appear before the Security Council on 5 February. We will have a further statement from inspector Hans Blix on 14 February.
  War looks more likely than not and no one in all conscience can ever relish the prospect of war, but we are duty bound to assess what it would entail and plan for its consequences. That is exactly what the motion before the House attempts to do.
  Some of the accusations levelled against us have been out of place, distasteful and unworthy of many of those who have made them—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) is at it again.
  Glenda Jackson: My only rider to the hon. Gentleman's statement was, "Invariably factual."
  Mr. Duncan: My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) has been asking questions

  1095
  about the humanitarian consequences of any war for a long time. She has done so in a spirit of constructiveness and in a responsible manner, not in a mood of point-scoring or petty politics, as some people have said. There is no better evidence of her attitude to the subject than her letter to the Secretary of State of 4 December. It was a well-reasoned and thoughtful letter, asking some serious and sensible questions of the right hon. Lady. I shall instance a few:
  "what will happen to the Oil for Food Programme … How effective are Iraqi aid agencies?"—
  and what happens if UN personnel have to leave the country?
  "Has consideration been given to protective clothing … What discussions have you had with your counterparts in the surrounding states",
  and what about the "pre-positioning" of supplies and people? What medicines and vaccines are there, what might he needed, and are there sufficient stocks? What liaison is there between civil and military agencies—a very important point, in particular in the early stages of anything that might happen, and,
  "What role does the Government envisage for the BBC Arabic Service?"
  No one can say that that is petty point scoring. No one can say that it is irresponsible. Those were grown-up, sensible and dutiful questions put by the Opposition to the Secretary of State.
  What did we get back? Five lines, which read:
  "Thank you for your letter of 4 December about Iraq. I am glad you share my concern for the Iraqi people."—
  that looked like a little pat on the head to me.
  "My Department is looking at all eventualities, and talking to relevant actors across the UK government and internationally. We are also in regular contact with the NGOs we already fund in Iraq. We are planning for a wide range of humanitarian contingencies."
  That was that.
  I simply do not understand the Secretary of State's petulance. There is no need for it. We have set aside all party consideration in being largely supportive of the Prime Minister and of the Government of which the right hon. Lady is a part—[Laughter].I do not understand how the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) can laugh. Her attitude today has been lamentable.
  A similarly constructive attitude from the Secretary of State to our legitimate inquiries about humanitarian concerns would have been appreciated and will yet be appreciated in the remaining minutes of this debate. The right hon. Lady is to speak for a second time and will have the opportunity to answer the questions that she did not answer before, which I will deal with in a minute. First, I will deal with some of the interventions.
  The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate seems to have done a runner, but she intervened early in my hon. Friend's speech, as did the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)—I am afraid with another party political point, about asylum. The whole point about all that might happen in Iraq is not that it might become easier to escape persecution by coming to
  1096
  Britain, but that those who are born and live in Iraq might yet escape persecution by staying where they are. That is what all this is about.
  The hon. Member for Richmond Park, who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, essentially has this policy on Iraq: let them stew. She is in favour of doing nothing. She adopts a totally illogical position. She does not want sanctions, but she expects containment. She says that containment is working, but she wants to drop sanctions. It is an utterly illogical position behind which there is no cogent thesis.
  Dr. Tonge: I do not remember at any stage of my speech saying that containment was working. I do not think I even mentioned it.
  Mr. Duncan: The hon. Lady wants sanctions to be dropped. How does she think she would contain Saddam Hussein if that happened?
  In the minutes left, we in the House have a crucial opportunity to give the Secretary of State a second chance to inform us, which she failed to do earlier. In many respects, we have had a good debate. We have heard 12 contributions. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney) drew attention in particular to the plight of children. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) expressed his exasperation—I share his view—at the Secretary of State's sins of omission, and I hope that she can rectify them in a moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) made an excellent and thoughtful contribution; she added to our deliberations.
  The Secretary of State spoke only of the risks. Let me return to what she said. Quite reasonably, she listed some of the risks that Iraq will face: ethnic fighting; the removal of electrical power, which will affect water and sanitation; the burning of oil wells; the disruption of the oil-for-food programme; and biological and chemical contamination. All of that is valid stuff. It says something about her analysis, but absolutely nothing about her proposed course of action. That is what the debate is about, and it is what we call for in our motion.
  When I intervened on the Secretary of State, she said that she would give us some details—but she did not. She gave us none at all. We have heard nothing whatever about her contingency plans, so let me try to set the parameters in which, I hope, she will be able to give us at least some information. There are some aspects of Iraq that give it good prospects for long-term recovery. There is a highly educated and intelligent population—the legacy, to an extent, of what was there before Saddam Hussein.
  There is secular government, albeit horrendous. Again, to an extent that is an advantage. There is a chance that, if the integrity of the state can be maintained, there will not be the ethnic fighting that the right hon. Lady suggested might be a risk. Crucially, unlike Afghanistan, Iraq will be able to benefit—sooner, rather than later—from the revenues that it can earn from oil, which can play a significant part in its reconstruction.
  Let us consider the shorter-term humanitarian needs: food and clothing suitable for the climate and the people and, crucially, water. If electricity has gone and people

  1097
  are moving, they will have no water. So stockpiles of water, particularly in the growing heat, will be absolutely crucial to the basic survival of the people who are bound to be displaced by any conflict. As soon as water goes and sanitation goes, there is the risk of cholera and other diseases, so there is an immediate need for vaccines of all sorts, for which adequate preparation can readily be made and admitted to the House without in any way compromising the military secrets that the right hon. Lady thinks compel her to some kind of Trappist vow.
  There will be the movement of people. We hope that there will not be massive movements of people across borders. We hope that, at worst, there will be internally displaced people, who perhaps can be helped more readily, given the existing aid structures in Iraq. In the short-term, the logistical needs of any kind of aid will probably rely on military co-operation to start with, rather than on civil personnel delivering all the aid. It is probably true—in some ways, I hope it is—that many people in Iraq, fearing what is coming, may have stockpiled up to a month's supply of food for their own use. That will provide them with a necessary and crucial breather for their survival if there is conflict.
  What I really object to is the fact that, despite the terms of our motion and the requests that we made in intervening on the Secretary of State, we have heard nothing from her about her plans. She could not even give us a basic list of those to whom she is talking. She could not, even in basic conceptual terms, address the sort of action that might be needed. Such an approach does not give away any secrets. If those things are not happening, it is a scandal. If they are happening, there is no reason not to tell the House today.
  The United States is devoting extensive resources to planning for humanitarian aid, with a professionalism and purpose that the right hon. Lady seems unwilling to replicate or even to discuss. I find the right hon. Lady's attitude today absolutely bewildering. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden has been consistent, constructive and even rather dogged in asking her to make a statement and to explain her plans. We are grown up enough to know that she would rather not give certain details in public. She could even have offered some kind of private briefing for my hon. Friend, but she has not even had the basic courtesy to do that, even within the restricted criteria that we may accept need to govern what she says. All that we have done is ask for some basic information about the Government's plans for humanitarian aid to what may be a war-riven country.
  Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Duncan: No.
  Instead, all that has happened is that the Secretary of State has got ratty. We could be exchanging all sorts of ideas and suggestions, each of which might save lives. All that we have had from her, however, is a bizarre and peculiar reaction. I was looking forward, in the spirit in which the Opposition have approached this difficult moral issue, to congratulating her on her vision, commitment and sincerity, as I have done previously, and as I have regularly congratulated the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on everything that she
  1098
  has done in the middle east and elsewhere. Given that all we have witnessed today is apparent confusion, dereliction and seeming lack of grip, we must demand better.
  Let me try again, in the minute remaining, to ask the Secretary of State, in a spirit of genuine co-operation, what she plans to do to help with the humanitarian needs of Iraq should there be some kind of military conflict. Will she tell us a little about her budget; her priorities; who her partners will be, internationally and in Iraq; how her co-operation will work with the armed forces, and how responsibilities will be shared with other agencies? Will she give us a clue? If she does so, we will give credit where credit is due. If all we get is continuing silence and obfuscation, she will have to answer charges of negligence and disarray.
  5.47 pm
  Clare Short: I asked at the beginning of the debate for permission to wind up, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is at her mother-in-law's funeral. I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that permission again.
  After that pompous, smug and self-satisfied speech, let me say that I now understand what the Tory party is trying to say—[Interruption.] I am trying to speak, and already the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) is heckling from a sedentary position. The Tory party is saying, "We welcome war, let us go to it. What are your plans to tidy up afterwards?" They do not appear to understand a number of things that I have tried to explain to them.
  First, it has been difficult to get all the parts of the international system that must prepare—[Interruption.] The Tories are heckling again, and they pretend that they are concerned about these matters. It has been difficult to get all those parts to prepare for all the different contingencies, of which there are many—it is not just a question of war or no war, and action to plan for war that will have certain inevitable consequences.
  It is a question of how the inspectors perform, whether there will be military action and what kind of military action it will be—all of this will relate to the situation in the middle east—and what kind of humanitarian consequences might flow. Much of what needs to be prepared must be lined up against the military contingencies, which it has been difficult to get the international system to talk about. Even when it will do so, I am not in a position to report to the House the details of all those discussions. Similarly, the UN system, which is responsible to its members, most of whom do not want to foresee military action in Iraq, has had difficulty getting started on its preparations. Then it started, but it did not want to make public statements about those preparations, because of the amount of seething anxiety across the international system, of which perhaps those Members who are so happy to go to war are unaware—[Interruption.]
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. It is clear that the Secretary of State is not giving way.
  Clare Short: I have taken a lot of false, rude, ignorant and silly abuse. I should like to make some progress and

  1099
  educate Conservative Members because they are not thinking through all the agonising possibilities. We have to think through the ways in which we can minimise the suffering of the people of Iraq in terms of the reality of the international system in which we have to work. In addition, the neighbouring countries have not been willing to talk openly about the prospects of war or military or humanitarian preparations. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may heckle, but that is the reality.
  Conservative Members seem to think that it is possible to plan to have a war in which the US would be overwhelmingly the largest player and the UK a relatively small player, and for my Department to sit on the sidelines putting in place plans for the humanitarian contingencies so that everyone in Iraq is cared for properly. The world does not work like that. The UK is 5 per cent. of the international humanitarian system. The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney) asked me to consider becoming a tsar for children. I would be delighted to rage into Iraq to look after its children and to leave the multilateral system to one side, but the scale and complexity of the crisis, and the possibility of a post-war situation, mean that it is not possible to act like that. The value of the debate is to stress that it is impossible to make military plans without thinking of the humanitarian consequences.
  Mr. Robert Key: Tell us about it.
  Clare Short: I told the hon. Gentleman about it in my introductory remarks, but because the Conservative party is so intent on war and the humanitarianism of tidying up afterwards—
  Mr. Andrew Turner: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is the third time that the right hon. Lady has perpetrated that slander against the party of which I am proud to be a member. Many hon. Members, such as myself, are gravely doubtful of the leadership provided by the Prime Minister on the matter and we want to know what the right hon. Lady is doing to mop up the mess that may be created.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I remind the hon. Gentleman that that is not a point of order for the Chair, but a point for debate.
  Clare Short: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has just come into the Chamber and has not been listening to the debate. Funnily enough, he just confirmed my point. He wanted to know what I am doing to mop up the mess. That is my very point. We cannot approach the crisis in that way. It does not work like that. We need to think of all the possible contingencies and plan to minimise any harm to the people of Iraq. For example, if chemical and biological weapons are used, the military will have to take action to protect the people, but Conservative Members do not seem to be interested in those realities. I am sure,
  1100
  however, that other hon. Members and those who read the debate will be capable of thinking through the consequences.
  Mrs. Gillan: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Clare Short: No, I am sorry.
  The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), for whom I have much affection and respect, demonstrated the luxury of being a Liberal Democrat. She wanted to withdraw sanctions and to have no military action in the middle east because any war would be a human catastrophe. The UN imposed sanctions after Iraq invaded Kuwait. They were meant to be for a brief period. Iraq had chemical, biological and nuclear capacity. The UN put in its inspectors and the sanctions were to be lifted after they disarmed the weaponry. We have worked to refine and limit the sanctions. Surely no one in a responsible world would propose walking away and allowing Saddam Hussein to go on with developing his weapons of mass destruction and terrorising his people. Life is just not as easy as that.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) that, despite some of the noises off, it is valuable to have a debate that considers military possibilities alongside humanitarian consequences. Such a debate, which is overdue, might lead to refinement of the planning of some of the military options. He asked, "Should we go in and hammer these people?" The answer is no. If military action is necessary to maintain the authority of the UN to deal with the problem, we should think about how it can be refined so that the people of Iraq are properly cared for and any harm to them is minimised. Some of that work is going on and needs to be taken further.
  I have responded to the points of the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire. I assure him that we shall do all in our power to minimise the suffering of the people. It is not possible to minimise the suffering of children without minimising the suffering of civilians, of their mothers and their families. If we can have a more sophisticated debate about military options and how to minimise harm to the people of Iraq, we can probably minimise some of that harm and bring about the recovery much more quickly.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) used the words, "If we carpet bomb". There must be no carpet bombing. She will remember the Gulf war. I did not resign from our Front Bench when the Gulf war took place. It was my desire to talk about the kind of military action, the unnecessary bombardment and suffering for the people of Iraq, which was not permitted, that led me to resign. There is a speech on the record that spells that out and demonstrates to some Opposition Members that the suggestions that they have been making are false.
  As for the poor hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), he revealed some of the motivations of his party and his ignorance and silliness. His speech was beneath contempt and was not worth commenting on.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) has campaigned long and hard for the bringing to justice of Saddam Hussein. That is a very useful campaign. I think that the most optimistic scenario is

  1101
  enough time, a united international community, progress in the Middle East, a crumbling of the regime, minimal military action and Saddam Hussein brought to justice. That is not ruled out. If we examine some of the options, we shall see that we could get there and then minimise the suffering of the people.
  The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) asked a question about the Kuwaiti border—[Interruption]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady is responding to questions from hon. Members. Quiet would be appreciated.
  Clare Short: I do not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, but I shall make sure that it is provided if it is available and if the Ministry of Defence is willing to give it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) asked about refugees going into mined areas. Again I make the point that we must look at all the contingencies, but we must try to avoid massive movements of refugees, because that would mean terrible bombardment, and possible use of chemical and biological weapons. Those contingencies are being thought through by UNHCR. Another hon. Member asked whether it dealt with internally displaced people, and the answer is that it does. The contingency plans are being made, but let us try to ensure that mass movements of population are not caused, because that would mean a terrible situation inside Iraq.
  I would tell the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) that we certainly will not repeat the disaster that was Rwanda and the handling of the humanitarian situation there. There have been major improvements in the capacity of the international system since then.
  My reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) is "absolutely". The weapons inspectors are back in because there was a willingness to use military action to back up the authority of the UN. We might not like it, but that is the truth. My view is that we should continue with that determination, but through the UN, to minimise humanitarian harm and as speedily as possible reconstruct Iraq. The Arab world is working on the prospect of getting Saddam Hussein removed rather than having a war. All these options should be explored.
  David Maclean rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House observes the dire humanitarian situation in Iraq resulting from Saddam Hussein's misrule and Iraqi obstruction of humanitarian agencies; notes that more than ten per cent. of all Iraqi children die before their fifth birthday, and that a quarter of children under five are chronically malnourished; further notes the high dependency of Iraqis on Oil for Food programmes; deplores the continued Iraqi disruption of the Oil for Food programme; recognises the serious threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction; understands that military action may follow Iraq's continued violation of its international obligation to disarm and destroy those weapons of mass destruction, contrary to UN Resolution 1441; urges the Secretary
  1102
  of State for International Development to work with the international community urgently to draw up a comprehensive humanitarian strategy for assisting the people of Iraq in the event of war; further urges Her Majesty's Government to ensure that there is close co-operation between the military campaign and the aid effort; and calls on the Secretary of State for International Development to keep Parliament fully informed of the humanitarian situation in Iraq.

  DEREGULATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1)(a)(Consideration of draft deregulation orders),
  DEREGULATION

    CREDIT UNIONS
    That the draft Regulatory Reform (Credit Unions) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 16th January, be approved.—[Mr. Ainger.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1)(a)(Consideration of draft deregulation orders),

    ASSURED PERIODIC TENANCIES
    That the draft Regulatory Reform (Assured Periodic Tenancies) (Rent Increases) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 13th January, be approved.—[Mr. Ainger.]
    Question agreed to.

  NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 115 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (delegated legislation) and 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)),
  That—

  (1) the draft Budget (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee; and

  (2) the Committee shall consider the instrument referred to it under paragraph (1) above at its meeting on Thursday 6th February.—[Mr. Ainger]

  Question agreed to.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Tuesday 4th February, the Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr Robin Cook relating to the options on the composition of the House of Lords not later than Five o'clock; pursuant to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform in its First Report (House of Commons Paper No. 171), Questions on later Motions may be put notwithstanding any decision of the House on earlier Motions; the Questions may be decided after the moment of interruption, and the Orders of the House of 28th June 2001 and 29th October 2002 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply.—[Mr. Ainger.]

(66) PETITIONS

  Coniston Hotel
  6.1 pm
  Mr. Derek Wyatt: I wish to present a petition from Robert Wrigley and over 5,000 residents of Sittingbourne in Kent.
  The petition states:
  The Coniston Hotel is a valuable and important resource for the residents of Sittingbourne and provides facilities that are unable to be matched by any other venue within the town.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call on the Home Office to urgently reverse the decision to use the Coniston Hotel as a Centre for Asylum Seekers.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Chechnya
  6.2 pm
  Mr. John Redwood: I wish to present a petition on behalf of Anthea West of Norreys Avenue, Wokingham and nearly 5,000 signatories, principally from the Berkshire area, which was collected by Amnesty International Reading group.
  The petition states:
  The UK has been silent in the face of wide scale serious human rights violations in the Republic of Chechnya; that forces of the Russian Federation are reportedly continuing to commit these crimes.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Prime Minister to publicly condemn, and call for an end to, all human rights violations in the Republic of Chechnya; to make it clear that human rights violations may not be perpetrated and justified under the pretext of an international "war against terrorism"; to urge the Russian authorities both to set up impartial, comprehensive investigations into those violations and to ensure that those guilty of committing them be brought to trial and sentenced appropriately.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Council Tax (Dorset)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]
  6.3 pm
  Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: My constituency of Mid-Dorset and North Poole is covered by four principal councils—Poole unitary authority, Dorset county council, Purbeck district council and East Dorset district council. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) will bear with me when I mention those different councils.
  I should make it clear at the outset that I am a Poole councillor. All of my constituency is served by Dorset police authority. I called for this debate because I have received a large number of representations from my constituents, who do not know how they will cope with predicted rises in their council tax. Those representations are largely from pensioners, but the points that I am going to make apply equally to people on fixed or low incomes, particularly pensioners and others who just miss qualifying for benefits.
  I shall quote from some typical letters, one of which says:
  "It is truly outrageous, the proposed increase in council tax, it is indeed bad enough for people earning a living wage but to aged pensioners on a low and fixed pension, it is crippling and a cause of great concern. A great many of us served this country well in 6 long years of war and today we are treated as 2nd and 3rd class citizens, central government and local government impose these extreme hardships on the most vulnerable, without any concern or remorse."
  Another correspondent writes:
  "You will have noticed that a lot of us are lone pensioners, some with just one single state pension. I live in a modest flat. I have to pay insurance, telephone, half bus fare travel, food, clothes, council tax at £70 per month, flat maintenance of £70 per quarter, and so on—all of this out of £75.50 per week."
  I am sure that the Minister will tell me by how much the Government have increased pensions, as well as introducing the minimum income guarantee and the winter fuel allowance, but pensions are the same across the whole country, in contrast to levels of council tax and percentage increases in council tax, as I shall demonstrate.
  More than 26 per cent. of Dorset's residents are pensioners, and even in Poole, where there is new development, 23 per cent. of the population are pensioners. Yes, there are some pensioners who might be regarded as affluent, but the vast majority are not, and even those who have private pension schemes are likely to have lost income with the fall in the stock market and its knock-on effects on pensions. Dorset and Poole have relatively low-wage economies, which means that local people are not likely to receive large additional pensions.
  I recently asked some parliamentary questions and established that the real increase in the state pension since 1996 equates to 7 per cent. I also established that percentage increases in council tax in real terms over the same period varied from a reduction of 20 per cent. in Wandsworth to a rise of 66 per cent. in Brent. The percentage increases in real terms over the same period

  1105
  for the billing authorities in my constituency are 37 per cent. in Poole, 49 per cent. in East Dorset and 54 per cent. in Purbeck. It is easy for Ministers to suggest that the increases are all the fault of local councils, but the truth is that it is due to a combination of factors, and the largest influences by far are the level of Government grants and Government requirements on local councils. That is taxation by postcode, determined primarily in Whitehall.
  Wandsworth's band D council tax this year is £403 and Brent's is £878, and I suspect that pensioners get free bus travel in both those places. In Poole, it is £936. I am proud that in Lib-Dem Poole, people get more for less, taking account of the local influences. In East Dorset the figure is £1,045 and in Purbeck £1,023. I could choose billing authorities' increases and actual council tax in different parts of the country to prove almost anything that I set out to prove. As a further example, in Trafford there has been a 19 per cent. increase since 1996, and band D tax is £817. In Westminster, where there has been a 30 per cent. increase, the band D tax is £445.
  A good tax ought to be easy to understand. It is impossible for people to understand the variations that exist. A good tax should also be related to ability to pay, and that is clearly not the case. A real increase in pensions of 7 per cent. from 1996 to date against the best case in Dorset—that is, Poole—where there has been a 37 per cent. real increase in council tax over the same period, is clearly placing a huge burden on pensioners and others on fixed incomes.
  The Government, as the Minister well knows, are currently consulting on a new financial formula, and so far, right across Dorset, the application of the formula has brought forth from the various councils predictions of even larger increases. I am aware that the county council is considering a 16 per cent. increase and that Poole is considering 13 to 14 per cent. Dorset police authority is proposing a 20 per cent. increase in its part of the council tax just to stand still.
  How does that compare with the increase in the state pension? That, I believe, will be increased by a massive 2.58 per cent. in April—that is, £1.95 per week for a single pensioner. The quality of life for pensioners in Dorset is being further attacked in the coming year. People are frightened and do not feel that they can or will take more of this medicine. Some of my constituents have told me that they want to march on Parliament to express their views.
  I know that my local council has agonised over expenditure and endeavoured to make £3 million-worth of cuts, which is a great deal for a small unitary authority, but as education and social services make up the largest part of the budget, cuts are difficult to make without hitting the vulnerable any more, depriving our already poorly funded schools and possibly even incurring the wrath of the Secretary of State for Education and Skills by not passporting all the funds as required. Representatives of both Dorset and Poole councils have met Ministers to put their case, but I fear that their pleas have fallen on deaf ears. That is why I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain to the Minister how actions in Westminster are affecting my constituents.
  1106
  The past was bad enough for pensioners in my constituency, but the Minister could take action for the future. I should like to make three points about that. Will the anomaly in the new formula, which is adversely affecting all the councils in Dorset, be looked at prior to the final announcement on the financial settlement? Our councils have lost out on the resource equalisation aspect of the new formula, but have received no help from the area cost adjustment.
  The anomaly appears to occur because Dorset and Poole authorities have high house prices but relatively low wages. A recent survey put Poole at No. 14 in the list of places that are most expensive to buy a home in comparison with average wages. The gap is growing and putting more and more pressure on the recruitment of staff for essential services such as teaching and social services. Council wage costs are the same as elsewhere, if not higher. The situation is similar for Dorset: average house prices are slightly lower, but average wages are also lower. Therefore, among the shire counties, Dorset is the second highest ranked in terms of the number of hours worked to buy an average house.
  It would help if the Government were prepared to moderate the effect of the resource equalisation and allow councils in Dorset to benefit from the area cost adjustment. That would mean taking on board house prices. I know that we have made that plea before, but it is so important to many people. I fear that the Minister is likely to say, "You are protected by the floors", but that fills me with even greater dread, as it would appear that things will just get worse in future years. There is also uncertainty because we do not know how long the Minister anticipates that ceilings and floors will exist.
  Secondly, given the burden on pensioners throughout the country under this absurd system—I do not think that anybody could describe all the different council taxes that are quite unrelated to the level of services provided in any other way—will the Minister consult his colleagues and, if there is no more money in the local government financial settlement, consider some additional support for pensioners?
  Thirdly, in the longer term, surely a new local taxation system should be considered, so that taxation is related to ability to pay. I suggest a local income tax as the answer. There would always need to be some equalisation by central Government and a centralised financial settlement, but a local income tax, as recommended by the Layfield committee way back in 1974, which I am sure the Minister will not recall, would allow local decision making and make councils more accountable to their electorate.
  There is a blame culture surrounding the council tax. The ruling party on a council is likely to identify the role of the Government in determining council tax as the prime reason behind the high percentage increase. The opposition parties often try to pin the whole blame on the ruling party. That is the basis of many elections; it is ridiculous and not good for local democracy.
  I have no objection to taxes varying by postcode as long as there is clear and accountable decision making, which, frankly, there is not at the moment. Finally, taxes need to be related to ability to pay. Otherwise, we need some more protection to be put into the system.
  Mr. Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She is to be

  1107
  congratulated on securing this Adjournment debate in the ballot. Almost every hon. Member representing a Dorset constituency has been trying to secure such an opportunity.
  Does the hon. Lady share my concern about what happened yesterday when I raised the issue under discussion with the Minister for Local Government and the Regions? He said that the prospect of a 19 or 20 per cent. council tax increase in Dorset had nothing to do with the Government and that it was all the fault of the county council. Was that not absurd? Does she agree that it is a big problem that the Government seem to think that the value of one's house is a proxy for one's ability to pay council tax, when it manifestly is not?
  Mrs. Brooke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I heard part of the answer to which he refers, which emphasises the point that I have been making: there is a blame culture, which does nobody any good. It is clear that council tax forms far less than a third of the amount that pays for local services. When there is a shortage of funds, the leverage or gearing effect puts extra pressure on council tax. I repeat that my colleagues way back in Poole are having sleepless nights while deciding whether to cut social services—the most obvious area in which to make cuts because of the amounts that are spent and as there are fewer restrictions than apply to education—or to increase council tax. In both cases, it is the vulnerable who will be hurt, which fills me with great horror. At the end of the day, the decision will result in high council tax increases for pensioners and others.
  I shall conclude by drawing those points together, as I want to give the Minister plenty of time to provide a full explanation to me and to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). I ask him to ensure that we can go back to the people who visit our surgeries and who are writing letters and give them the Government's answer. Will he give serious consideration to the three points that I have made: the formula; something to help pensioners; and, finally, the suggestion that the Government must surely make some changes to this absurd system in the long term?
  6.17 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Christopher Leslie): May I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) on securing this debate? Her honourable colleague on the Back Benches, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), was right to say that many Members have been trying hard to secure a debate on the local government finance settlement. We will have more general opportunities for other Members to discuss the matter, but the hon. Lady has done very well to secure this debate.
  In my short time as a Minister with responsibility for local government, I have received representations from almost all hon. Members regarding how much grant goes from the Government to local authorities. Very rarely have I ever heard any hon. Member say that they are delighted and ecstatic about the grants that they get, even though, in some circumstances, the increases go
  1108
  into double figures. Every year, local and national newspapers are full of stories forecasting doom and gloom about high council tax increases. Sadly, this year is no exception. However, I believe that when one considers the settlement that we have managed to put in place and the extra resources that we have found for local government—an issue to which I shall return in a moment—one sees that there can be very few excuses for excessive council tax rises, especially this year.
  I shall try to address the hon. Lady's three points in particular, but it may be helpful if first I give a quick background to the council tax system and the local government finance arrangements. Decisions rest with the councils and councillors, and it is for the local authorities in Dorset to decide how much council tax local people should pay. The Government do not say at what level council tax should be set or what money should be spent on. Decisions about council tax levels are for individual local authorities, and accountability is the key. Local authorities are answerable to their local electorate about the council tax rate, and we believe that they should take into consideration the views of local taxpayers. Elected councillors—I understand that the hon. Lady is one herself—have a responsibility and accountability in that regard.
  Mrs. Brooke: Contributions from central Government form the greatest portion of the money that goes towards local services. Given that the Government require local authorities to provide a good standard of services, how can local councils have total control over the level at which they set the council tax? Dorset was classed as very good in its comprehensive performance assessment, and Poole, a small unitary authority, was classed as good, so we are talking about efficient councils that have scored highly throughout every test. If the majority of funding comes from central Government, how can the local authority be the sole determinant?
  Mr. Leslie: I was about to say that it is true that councils' resources come not only from council tax, but from central Government grant that is allocated to them. All elected councillors face a series of difficult decisions, not only in prioritising where that money should go, but in setting the level of council tax year on year, and we carefully consider the representations that we receive. Ultimately, it is not rocket science. We have a finite pot of money, and we have to apply a formula. It is the best and fairest way of distributing grant to all authorities across the country, and that system should continue. We have reformed the formula system, which has led to improvements, but I understand that it affects different authorities in different ways.
  Mr. Chope: The Minister is being a bit disingenuous. The Government make assumptions about the presumed level of council tax that will flow as a result of the settlement. Is it not correct that the assumed council tax is rising from £769 this year to £1,001 next year—an increase of 30 per cent. on the Government's own assumptions?
  Mr. Leslie: There are various statistical assumptions about council tax. I shall come to that when we discuss the part of the formula known as resource equalisation.

  1109
  We believe that we have put in place a formula for distributing grant that will ensure a fair distribution between authorities. It is necessarily detailed, but we have been able to simplify the structure, which is now based on a basic level of funding per head, with top-ups for various factors such as deprivation, high labour costs and scarcity.
  The settlement across the country is a good one. We have been able to ensure that every single authority is getting more money—not only that, but an increase above the cost of living and above inflation. It is important to put that on the record. Since this Administration came to power, there has been a 25 per cent. real-terms increase in money to local authorities. That compares very favourably with the cuts that took place under the previous Administration.
  We have set up the system known as floors and ceilings to temper some of the excessive data changes in some authorities—lost population, for example. For some local authorities that have responsibility for providing education and social services, such as Dorset and Poole, the floor is 3.5 per cent. and the ceiling is 8 per cent. For all other authorities, the floor guarantee is 3 per cent.
  We shall announce the final settlement figures next week. Dorset county council is provisionally due to receive £181.1 million in grant—an increase of £66.7 million, or 3.7 per cent.—and Poole borough unitary authority is due to receive £74.5 million, an increase of £2.7 million, or 3.9 per cent. Of the two district councils in the hon. Lady's constituency, East Dorset district council is pencilled in to receive £3.5 million in grant—an increase of £100,000, or 3.6 per cent.—and Purbeck district council receives £3 million in grant, an increase of £800,000, or 3 per cent.
  I can say for the benefit of authorities in Dorset that we intend to keep the system of guaranteeing a certain level of grant for the foreseeable future. We do not, however, believe that it is appropriate to set the level of the floor guarantee for future years, because factors such as data on pupil numbers can vary considerably each year, making it difficult to make a firm decision now on the level of floors and ceilings.
  The hon. Lady asked me to consider what she called the Dorset anomaly—the interplay between the area cost adjustment, which is the top-up system that covers higher labour costs, and the complex but important part of the formula known as resource equalisation.
  The area cost adjustment is now more sensitive to local circumstances. It recognises high costs on a consistent basis nationally, rather than being arbitrarily confined to London and the south-east. We consulted about a house price approach to the area cost adjustment, but that received little support from local government and the local government community.
  We concluded that wages—what is paid to people in each area—are a more robust basis for the area cost adjustment than house prices. That does not imply that house prices do not matter. If they are sustained at a high level in an area, they may lead employers to increase wages to tackle recruitment and retention problems. The area cost adjustment will be updated every year to incorporate the latest wages data.
  1110
  Authorities that receive the area cost adjustment are determined directly by wages data. After adjusting the average wage figures to make like-for-like comparisons, we set a threshold. Authorities with relative wages above the threshold receive the area cost adjustment.
  Average wages in Dorset are currently 1.7 per cent. below the cut-off. However, the new methodology protects lower wage areas by bringing those authorities that are below the threshold up to its value. That benefits Dorset and recognises national pay scales for staff such as teachers that do not vary with local wage pressures.
  The hon. Lady asked about resource equalisation. It aims to reflect fairly authorities' relative ability to raise income from their tax base. For grant distribution purposes, we assume that all authorities set a council tax that is the same for every authority in the same class. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) made that point. We do not assume that some authorities can set a higher council tax than others. The number of band D equivalent properties varies between authorities.
  Resource equalisation is the means whereby we recognise that authorities can raise differing amounts from a given level of council tax. That is because some authorities have higher tax bases than others. Resource equalisation is not new; it was a key part of the old standard spending assessment system. We have brought it up to date so that it reflects more recent information on the national average level of council tax. That clearly improves the fairness of the grant distribution system.
  The hon. Lady mentioned fairness and asked me to consider the underlying principles of the council tax and whether it was fair for house prices—rather than, for example, local incomes—to determine council tax. That has more to do with whether a local property tax is fair in principle than with grant distribution. The council tax system uses house valuation to establish the relative value of all dwellings in an area. That means that the system can operate effectively and that the burden of taxation is distributed fairly and reasonably.
  The hon. Lady favours a local income tax, but I am curious to ascertain how that would work. Would it be levied according to the person's place of work or residence? Would it disadvantage city areas over suburban areas? Many local authorities, such as Liberal Democrat-controlled Liverpool city council, would not necessarily be happy with such a system.
  Mrs. Brooke: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Leslie: I have no time because I have only a minute left, in which I should like to reassure the hon. Lady that we are giving pensioners extra support. We are giving significant discounts: for example, we are making a 25 per cent. reduction for single people. However, I do accept that more needs to be done, and we shall continue to work on that basis. Basic pension increases have been significant, and there is other support for pensioners as well, as the hon. Lady said. There is the minimum income guarantee, the cut in VAT on all domestic fuel bills, winter fuel payments for pensioners, and free TV licences for the over-75s. We have also increased the amount of savings that pensioners may have before they are taken into account when calculating entitlement to income-related benefits, including council tax benefit.

  1111
  The pension credit, which will be introduced from October, will build on the improvements already made to the minimum income guarantee. However, it will go further by simplifying benefits for pensioners, and by directly rewarding savings. It will have two elements: the guarantee credit and the savings credit. The pension credit will ensure that, for the first time, saving will be rewarded instead of being penalised, and that pensioners will gain from having done so.
  In the light of the issues raised by the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Christchurch, I believe that the system that is in place provides a more generous level of support for pensioners than that provided under the previous Administration. We want to ensure that we distribute grant to local authorities fairly, so that councils get not just a cash increase, but a real-terms increase in grant. The hon. Lady's local authorities are receiving those sums, and as I said, I do not believe that many excuses exist for excessive council tax rises. I
  1112
  accept that local councillors face difficulties, and it was interesting and useful to meet elected members and officers from the Dorset authorities in undertaking local consultation on the grant distribution process. However, I believe that the council tax system is working reasonably well as a local tax. The hon. Lady should not forget that its predecessor was the poll tax; sometimes, people have short memories in respect of that tax. The current tax is largely accepted and understood by local taxpayers. It is generally regarded as related in some respect to the ability to pay, in that it is linked to the property lived in by the person paying.
  We have given local authorities real increases in grant, but what councils choose to do about council tax is their final decision. I understand the hon. Lady's concerns, but I believe that Dorset is getting a reasonable deal. Councillors have to be held to account, and at the end of the day the council tax is a matter for locally elected councillors.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR NICHOLAS WINTERTON in the Chair]

Democracy and Accountability in the European Union
[Relevant documents: Thirty-third Report from the European Scrutiny Committee Session 2001–02 HC 152-xxxiii, Third Special Report (Government Reply) and minutes of evidence from the European Scrutiny Committee Session 2002–03 HC 103-i.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Caplin.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Jimmy Hood: I am pleased that we have this opportunity to debate my Committee's report on democracy and accountability in the European Union and the role of national parliaments. The report is intended as the Committee's contribution to the Convention on the Future of Europe. We decided to focus on a specific aspect of the Convention's work—the role of national Parliaments and related issues of democracy and accountability—rather than cover all the main questions set out in the Laeken declaration.
Our inquiry was thorough, and it included 11 oral evidence sessions, some of which were held in Brussels. The political classes are not yet taking the Convention on the Future of Europe seriously enough, although how our lives are governed within the EU is at stake. The Convention has recently started drafting a new EU treaty, which will supersede the existing treaties. It is impossible to exaggerate its importance. For example, it is becoming clear that if the convention reaches a consensus on a new treaty, it will be difficult for member state Governments to unpick it.
Pressure is also building for a quick intergovernmental conference in 2003 to endorse the Convention's work, rather than waiting until 2004. Growing recognition of the Convention's importance is reflected in the increasing involvement of high-ranking Ministers, such as Germany's Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, and we will watch with interest to see how the Government view it and how they involve their Ministers when the Convention finishes its work.
Drafting a new treaty inevitably puts at risk the hard-won compromises incorporated in existing treaties. If other member states agree a new treaty, the position of any country that likes the old treaties, but not the new ones, will be uncomfortable, to say the least. It has to be said, too, that while the Convention process is welcome in that it allows open debate, the Convention itself is not representative. Some of its working groups have produced strongly integrationist reports, notably working group 10, which advocates qualified majority voting in matters such as criminal law. The Convention is therefore hugely significant for the United Kingdom and there is a great deal at stake in the next few months. There are, of course, opportunities as well as risks, which is why the analysis of the recommendations of my Committee's report is so important.
332WH
Instead of going through the report in detail, I intend first to say a little about the underlying problems that it examines and then highlight seven aspects of the report, taking account of developments since it was published and putting questions to the Minister. The Committee is likely to return to some subjects shortly.
The central problem that the report seeks to address is the disconnection between citizens and EU institutions—as reflected, for example, in the low turnout for European parliamentary elections. The Prime Minister, among others, has suggested that one remedy is a greater role for national Parliaments in the EU. The Committee strongly agrees, because national Parliaments generally have a much closer relationship with citizens than any of the EU institutions. National Parliaments reflect the history and culture of the country, and have fewer electors per Member. Also, Members can spend more time in their constituencies and deal with the majority of subjects that interest people.
National Parliaments, through their relatively close relationships with citizens, can help to remedy the EU's problem of democratic legitimacy. At present, democratic legitimacy rests on elected national Governments represented in the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, but there are problems. Ministers in the Council act as legislators on their own, without most of the safeguards of a parliamentary Chamber. Most of all, they usually meet in secret. As for the European Parliament, the electorate have little knowledge of its activities and tend to vote on national issues in European Parliament elections.
Parties and individual MEPs are not held to account for their actions at EU level. On the other hand, national Parliaments have no formal role in EU law making. Their main role is to ensure that their own Ministers are made accountable for their activities in the Council, which is extremely difficult because the Council nearly always meets in secret. Unless national Parliaments acquire real influence in EU decision making, through their own Ministers or in other ways, they will never be in a position to strengthen the EU's democratic legitimacy.
Angus Robertson: To maintain intellectual consistency with that argument, does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the Council of Ministers is to be opened up to allow full transparency and accountability, the concordats regulating the relationship between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations—in which that interrelationship is secret, not transparent—should also be opened up?
Mr. Hood: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman who, along with other Committee members, actively seeks such transparency.
Mr. Michael Connarty: My hon. Friend will recall that we discussed that topic when we met the Scottish Parliament's European Committee. Will he confirm that we recommend in the report further consideration of privileged access to the Commission for the devolved Parliament's executives and that the

333WH
topics discussed in meetings on the concordat should at least be listed?
Mr. Hood: Yes. We pursued that issue in Committee.
Mr. Anthony Steen: I always enjoy listening to the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, because he speaks for us all when he says that we want a greater role for national Parliaments. Will he tell the House what progress he has made in testing the temperature in similar European Scrutiny Committees? How do they view the importance of the role of national Parliaments and increasing the responsibility that they take for their citizens, rather than delegating it more and more to Europe?
Mr. Hood: I thank the hon. Gentleman for tempting me down that road. I could put my speech away and talk for a couple of hours on that subject. Through the work of the Conference of Community and European Affairs Committees of Parliaments of the European Union, or COSAC, a realisation of the situation has been achieved, especially in respect of the work of the Convention. As a consequence, other member states are more conscious of the role of their national Parliaments, and we should welcome that.
I move on to the first of the seven issues that I intend to mention, which is the need for the Council to meet in public when it legislates. That basic principle of democratic government is observed everywhere except North Korea and, shamefully, the EU. No EU member state would tolerate for a moment any state legislating on domestic issues behind closed doors, and they should not tolerate it in the EU. Apart from it being repugnant in principle, it has specific harmful effects that are listed in the report.
Ministers are evading responsibility, believing that they can blame Brussels. Compromises can be made that suit the interests of the Governments, but those contain no genuine accountability of government, which makes the Council mostly invisible and too remote from its citizens. We welcome the fact that the UK Government favour the Council meeting in public when it legislates and we support the modest steps taken at the Seville Council to open up proceedings, but more needs to be done.
Openness should apply to all legislative procedures, including the common agricultural policy and other policies that are not subject to co-decision. It should not be necessary to go to Brussels to find out what Ministers are saying and doing. Both a Hansard report and a video recording should be available. Will the Minister tell us where the opposition to that is coming from, what the Government plan to do and how soon greater openness will be achieved in the Council?
Secondly, steps are needed to stop presidencies rushing through controversial legislation without allowing sufficient time for scrutiny by national Parliaments and other interested parties. As we say in the report, procedures often combine the worst of both worlds: extremely long delays when Governments are unable to agree and a lack of time for scrutiny when it is needed most.
334WH
We emphasise that time for scrutiny by national Parliaments is not an optional add-on, but a fundamental aspect of accountability. It is in the Government's interest, as well as ours, to sort out the problem, as Ministers who are pressed into agreeing proposals before those are cleared by the Committee are usually called before us to explain their activities. I am told that they do not enjoy that experience.
Our report suggests that either national scrutiny reserves should be incorporated into EU procedures or there should be a minimum time between consideration of a text by the Committee of Permanent Representatives and agreement by the Council. In either case, there should be tightly drawn provisions for urgent cases.
The Convention's working group on national Parliaments has made a proposal on giving greater force to national scrutiny reserves, and the Committee intends to reconsider the matter in order to make a more specific proposal. We should ensure that that does not fall off the Convention's agenda. One problem is that some national Parliaments make little attempt to hold their Ministers to account. Some presidencies do not understand the importance of parliamentary scrutiny, and we have sought to deal with that through COSAC.
Thirdly, the Committee supports the view that the EU six-monthly presidency should be replaced by something longer-term, which, as well as being more effective, would remove the incentive for presidencies to rush through proposals toward the end of their six months so as to clock up presidency achievements. The EU presidency has proved to be controversial, mainly because smaller countries fear that larger ones would dominate a new-style presidency, but it should be possible for an arrangement that safeguards smaller countries' interests to be made.
The Committee also notes how badly organised the Council of Ministers and, especially, the European Council are. The European Council showed evidence of inadequate preparation for meetings and bouncing items on to the agenda. We call for greater professionalism.
Fourthly, we examined the case for electing the President of the Commission, and we are against for two reasons. First, it would weaken the Commission's ability to rise above sectional interests, which is the main reason for having a Commission, and, secondly, it would change the balance among EU institutions by giving the President greater authority while making him or her less accountable in practice, but do little to reconnect citizens with EU institutions.
We were least attracted by the option of MEPs electing the Commission President. That would do nothing to remedy the disconnection of citizens, but it would create the possibility of a politically motivated President backed by a majority in the European Parliament. It is said that the French and their German friends support that proposition, and I invite the Minister to tell us whether the Government support the alleged Franco-German plan.
The fifth aspect of the report is the step to bring the European Parliament and its citizens closer together, which the Convention and its large contingent of MEPs have so far ignored, although it will become more important if the European Parliament is given more power through the extension of the co-decision process.

335WH
An important aspect of the problem is the election of MEPs through party lists in multi-Member constituencies, at least in the UK. Will the Minister tell us how the change to the election system in the EU has affected the relationship between MEPs and constituents? The system needs to be re-examined. The UK electorate have universally rejected proportional representation. If the political classes ignore the electorate, they will have little to complain about when the electorate return the compliment by disengaging from the electoral process. That is why the Committee recommends a return to the British tradition of using first past the post for European elections.
Mr. Connarty: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way once again. Does he agree that although a spectrum of opinions was expressed during the Committee's debate, most firmly suggested moving away from the current system, which has disengaged people? If we do not move toward the Committee's recommendation on first past the post, we must have a system that at least has constituencies, so that constituents believe that they have a representative rather than somebody chosen from a large list to go to Brussels who then loses touch with the electorate for ever.
Mr. Hood: Yes. My hon. Friend has a valid point. I am sure that all Members have been burning the midnight oil while avidly reading the Committee's report, and they will have noticed that that recommendation was carried by the Chairman's casting vote. I was also voting on behalf of absent members of the Committee.
We will not help to promote the involvement of the electorate by confusing people with different systems of election for different democratically elected bodies—local government, devolved Parliaments and national Parliaments. All the evidence that I have seen suggests that people prefer first past the post because they are used to, and comfortable with, the system and because it allows them to make a decision.
Mr. William Cash: Perhaps the Chairman of the Committee remembers that the amendment that led to that great change in the report was prompted by a suggestion of mine. The amendment was carried, which shows that we are considering a genuine all-party Committee report in the national interest and on a matter that goes to the heart of democracy in the United Kingdom. I concur with what the hon. Gentleman says.
Mr. Hood: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out, as a matter of record, that his amendment was made, with the help of my casting vote. That amendment succeeded, but, if I remember rightly, his other 152 failed.
Mr. Colin Challen: Did the Committee take evidence from European countries that operate PR systems to elect MEPs and ask whether they agreed with the Committee's conclusions?
Mr. Hood: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful point. In my experience, when we discuss COSAC countries, we do so with other member states. Member
336WH
states with PR sometimes look in envy at the UK system, which produces a majority Government. Many would like a system better than their own.
I joined the Select Committee on European Legislation two years after the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). I met Mr. Andreotti in 1989, when he was the Italian President, although I do not know where he is now, or whether he is in prison yet. He had been an elected Member of Parliament since 1946 and, some 40 years later, had been in every Government during those years—there had been 53 elections. That is a fairly strong point against PR, but I do not want to concentrate too much on that aspect. I feel that I have given it fair coverage.
Angus Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hood: I will, if it is on a different point.
Angus Robertson: No, it is on the same point.
Mr. Hood: Then I will not give way.
The report argues for more effective enforcement of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. Paragraph 106 gives a convincing explanation of why no EU institution is willing to comply with the principle of subsidiarity. The report points out that, in contrast, national Parliaments have no in-built institutional interest in transferring powers to the EU. We therefore conclude that national Parliaments should have a role in enforcing the principle.
The Convention's working groups on subsidiarity and on national Parliaments have since supported that by proposing an early-warning mechanism, whereby if a specified proportion of national Parliaments object to a proposal on the ground of subsidiarity, the Commission would have to re-examine it. In principle, that is a major development. It would give national Parliaments a formal, but small, role for the first time. In practice, however, it is not clear that it would have much impact, as there is nothing to prevent the Commission and other institutions from pressing on regardless.
If national Parliaments are to be subsidiarity watchdogs, they must be able to bite as well as bark. Will the Government support efforts to give a specified proportion of national Parliaments the power to block a Commission proposal? We considered ways of giving national Parliaments greater influence in EU policy-making, although such proposals tend to bring MEPs out in hot rashes. Some can even be caught foaming at the mouth.
I should emphasise what we are not proposing. We specifically reject the idea of a second Chamber and we do not want national Parliaments to get involved in the detail of scrutinising EU legislation and expenditure. Even if anyone wanted that to happen, MPs would be too busy to do it. We are not suggesting a change to the lines of accountability in the EU, and we are certainly not suggesting the creation of a new EU institution to tangle up the legislative process.
What we have in mind is national parliamentarians having a role in scrutiny and consultation that does not put too great a burden on national MEPs and that contributes to greater knowledge of, and interest in, EU matters in the national Parliaments. Rather than taking

337WH
anything away from MEPs, that would strengthen the ability of national Parliaments to represent their citizens on such matters and to influence Ministers.
Members are well aware of the low level of interest in EU matters at Westminster. That is a serious problem, and it should concern us all. The European Scrutiny Committee advocates meetings that would bring together MEPs and MPs to scrutinise the Commission's annual work programme and question Commissioners on it; scrutinise other annual programmes, such as those of the European Council; and consider major reports, such as the annual report on the common foreign and security policy. MPs would be able to ask questions and put views directly to senior EU figures, although their role would remain one of scrutiny.
Mr. Steen: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the low level of interest in the work of this Parliament and of the Committee is not alleviated by the fact that the Committee's meetings are held in private?
Mr. Hood: That is a valid point, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Committee addressed in its report. The Committee is committed to examining ways in which more of its work can be done in public. However, the Committee meets in public more often than in earlier years and many of its evidence sessions are televised. We are doing our little bit, but we want to improve.
Giscard d'Estaing, President of the Convention, proposes a congress. That proposal has encountered strong opposition, but the precise mechanism is not crucial. The congress could be a development on existing co-operation between the European Parliament and national Parliaments. At present, that co-operation consists of the European Parliament calling meetings—when it feels like it, on whatever subject it wishes and without consultation—and then complaining if national parliamentarians do not attend. National parliamentarians need a real stake and a real voice in that co-operation, but they lack those at present.
It is time for MPs and MEPs to decide what should be in the inter-parliamentary agreement proposed in the European Parliament's Napoletano report. I believe that the fears of MEPs are unjustified, and the EU has a lot to gain from involving national parliamentarians more.
It would be nice to end on an optimistic note, but I do not believe that it is realistic to do so. Despite the excellent work of the representative of the House of Commons, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who chaired the Convention working group on national Parliaments, it is not clear that the Convention is likely to make any proposal that would make a significant difference to the role of national Parliaments. If that is not put right, the Convention will not achieve the aim of reconnecting citizens with the EU. National Parliaments could contribute greatly to a more democratic and less remote EU, but only if they are given the opportunity so to do.
2.59 pm
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: We are all grateful to the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) for his exposition of the issues at stake. I entirely agree with his remarks about the importance of the Convention, on which I serve as a representative of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister said that the decision whether the United Kingdom joins the euro is the most important constitutional issue facing the country. The outcome of the Convention will be of equal importance for the future of Parliament, our courts and our self-government as a country.
The developments in the Convention over the past few weeks added to my alarm that we are not fulfilling its prime purpose, which is to create a more democratic Europe that is closer to its citizens. That mandate was given to the Convention in the Laeken declaration, and pious words were spoken at the beginning of our proceedings back in February about the importance of re-engaging the ordinary citizen and closing the democratic deficit, but recent events have somewhat obscured that mission and old vested interests and institutions are increasingly reasserting their requirements for more powers and influence at the expense of the primary role of creating a more democratic European Union.
It was useful to have attended, and indeed given evidence to, the European Scrutiny Committee, and to have read its reports. I have frequently quoted from those reports in meetings in Brussels. In the plenary session on 28 October, I quoted directly the remarks of the hon. Member for Clydesdale, who responded critically to the proposals to give national Parliaments a greater role over subsidiarity. He described the proposals as inadequate and a major disappointment, and both I and my co-representative, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), used his opinions and those of the Committee to strengthen our demand for Parliament to have a greater say. We know that most ordinary voters exercise their democratic choices primarily at national level. Many, including myself, would say that to create a supranational democracy in a continent as diverse as Europe is probably impossible, certainly in present circumstances. I do not know whether that is true, but we certainly need to rebuild the democratic credentials of the European Union on the firm basis of parliamentary democracy.
Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that it is a pity that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) is not here today? There may be some good reason for that, but given what emerged from the working group on national Parliaments that she chaired, the proposals are almost a waste of time. The further recommendation that European Union proposals could be blocked by two thirds of national Parliaments is constitutional nonsense.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Lady is probably not here because she is in Brussels. She is a member of the Praesidium.
Mr. Hood: To be helpful, my hon. Friend was in the House earlier this morning and has sent her apologies because she has to attend a family funeral.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I know that the hon. Lady would want to be here. To pick up on what was said in

339WH
the Committee's deliberations last year, in favour of stronger rights than simple consultation on the subsidiarity principle, she and I are both trying to strengthen those proposals. She has proposed a yellow card and red card system, in which a small number of national Parliaments could request, and a larger number could require, that the Commission withdraw proposals that breach the subsidiarity principle.
Angus Robertson: The right hon. Gentleman may, because of his close involvement in the Convention, know better than I and other hon. Members where we might find the proposal. The conclusions of working group 4, which was chaired by the hon. Lady, include no express mention of yellow cards, red cards or any system that can be associated at all closely with that characterisation.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman is right in his implication that the proposals are not firm. Certainly, they have not been taken up formally by the Convention. Indeed, I share the view of the hon. Member for Clydesdale that the original recommendations of the working group were inadequate. A reason for that—and this perhaps follows from a remark of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash)—is that policing the subsidiarity principle may be desirable, but it is too modest an aim. After all, that principle has been in treaty law for 10 years now. It was included under the Maastricht treaty. Giving national Parliaments the job of enforcing it is really an admission of defeat, in that the principle has not been observed. It is too modest a concession to give those Parliaments the job of doing something that should have happened anyway for the past decade. We must bid much higher.
Mr. Steen: My right hon. Friend is describing the principle of subsidiarity as a sort of Moriarty and Sherlock Holmes battle—no one quite knew who survived that. Conservative Members believe that subsidiarity should be strengthened and that national Parliaments should have an increased role, while the role of the Commission and the European Parliament should decrease in matters that are peculiarly significant to the member state. Could he give us some idea whether, as the Convention has developed, other member states have felt that national Parliaments and subsidiarity are as important as we in this country know them to be?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am not an expert on Sherlock Holmes, but that particular battle was, I think, never wholly resolved. There was always another book coming out in which the final battle was to take place. So it is with subsidiarity.
Despite the fact that the principle has been in the treaty all these years, there has been a steady accretion of power by the European Union and its institutions. Even if we manage to do things better in future, there remain in the acquis communautaire many breaches of the principle. There is no appetite in the Convention for revisiting the past and putting right the breaches.
To give a direct answer to my hon. Friend, very few other member states have the same tradition of parliamentary democracy and instinct for self-
340WH
government that drive this House in its demand that we should find a better way of deciding things, nearer to the citizens. Therefore, we—by which I mean myself and my co-representative, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston—are very much in a minority. However, I think that we are right and that we have public opinion on our side. We are fulfilling the Laeken declaration if we find new ways in which to bring powers nearer to the citizen, either at national or at sub-national level. There are strong demands from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and from local authorities to repatriate many measures that are decided in the remote tier of government in Europe.
Angus Robertson: On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the British Government's representative is not in favour of powers being passed down to sub-state legislatures and has made no attempt to support measures that would bring that about?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I cannot speak for the Government, but I can speak for my party. We want to make a reality of devolution. One does not devolve powers to the citizen by taking more powers upwards to the European Union. That is what has been and is going on, and it has to stop. The only way in which we can get powers to the Scottish Parliament or to the Welsh Assembly, which is an internal matter for the United Kingdom Parliament, is to bring them back to the UK from Brussels. I shall join the hon. Gentleman in that endeavour, if he wishes.
I strongly support what the Committee has said about the need to go further than simply trying to ensure that subsidiarity is observed. We must get national Parliaments into the legislative process. At present, we are at the end of the food chain. A deluge of legislation is initiated and passed above our heads, and we have no real mechanism to stop or influence it. The volumes are increasing and many of the proposals are not only inadequately debated but not debated at all.
One of the Committee's earlier recommendations was that A points should be considered. Those are decisions that are agreed at official level in the European Union and are then passed without any discussion by the Council of Ministers. I was pleased to see that the Committee recommended that that should be considered. Sadly, it was not supported by the Government's response. To show the scale of the problem, a parliamentary written answer says:
"The list of A points requiring clearance from London over the past five years amounts to over 8,000 items."—[Official Report, 14 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 513W.]
That is a submerged part of the European Union. There are literally hundreds of working committees in Europe making important decisions about technical standards or implementation and compliance in which Ministers are not involved at all. I know, because when I was a Minister at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office my responsibilities included Europe. I admit that I failed to bring that huge area of decision making under even the vestiges of democratic control. The agenda and minutes of those committees are not published, and nobody knows where they sit or what they do, but they take important decisions affecting the people whom we represent. The Committee was right that the Convention looks down into that submerged part of the

341WH
EU and tries to bring it under at least ministerial if not parliamentary control. That has not been supported by the Government.
Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why the European Union is going nowhere economically is the over-regulation that emerges from the failure of the system to control what comes out of the bureaucracy? That is going to accumulate. It has now reached proportions that are so vast that it is impossible to imagine how anybody would ever be able to gain control over it.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes. The European Union's itch to regulate and legislate is enormous because it has the luxury of legislating while the pain of raising the taxes to pay for it falls on national Governments, and that is having the most unfortunate economic consequences. One of my concerns in the Convention is that the economic future of Europe is not getting anything like the same attention as its political future. That is very noticeable in the debate in Germany. Last year, Germany re-elected a left-wing Government, but unemployment has continued to rise and it is now well over 4 million. The German Chancellor said that they cannot reduce interest rates because of the euro, and they cannot raise expenditure or cut taxes because of the stability pact—what the President of the Commission calls the stupid pact—so they are left with deregulation. At present, the European Union is introducing more measures on temporary and agency workers that will further restrict and regulate German and other European labour markets. There is complete disjunction between what the Germans say is necessary for their economy and the practice of the European Union.
Mr. Wayne David: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the great success of the European project to date has been the successful completion of a single market that has created more jobs and more prosperity than we have ever seen? That is why so many countries want to join it.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The single market is being overtaken by world trade talks and by the creation of global free trade; the tariff wall between member states and the outside world is very low compared with when we joined the European Union. The significance of the customs union is much less than it was. Many crimes have been committed in the name of the single market; it has given the green light to enormous and unnecessary over-regulation, which is regrettably reflected in high unemployment. By world standards, the European Union is a low-growth, highly regulated, high-unemployment zone, and the Germans are extremely worried about it even if the hon. Gentleman is not.
Mr. Mark Hendrick: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the regulations introduced by the European Union have broken down all the barriers to trade between the 15 member states? Every regulation that is introduced in Europe supersedes regulations that would have stopped trade at national level: they have
342WH
facilitated the growth of the European Union, not hindered it. Apart from this country and Denmark, most countries feel that regulation is working and is benefiting them. It is also significant that this country and Denmark are not in the euro and do not benefit from the abolishing of different currencies, which is another barrier to trade.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: That is a highly selective reading of what is happening in Europe. I do want to engage in a discussion on the euro, but I must observe that the Germans whom I meet on the Convention are extremely worried about their economy. We should all be worried about German unemployment. It matters less when a small country slows down, but when the economic motor of the European Union records almost zero growth and when its unemployment stands at well over 4 million, the rest of Europe is in danger of catching an economic cold. The Germans attribute the problem to the over-regulation and rigidities that are at least in part attributable to the European Union. There is nothing that they can do about it, as they cannot get out of the euro. The stupid pact is still in the treaty, and deregulation means that it will require the consent of all other member states before they can start to dismantle the barriers to new jobs. I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis.
To return to my central point, Parliament should be even more ambitious in its demands on the Convention. It is becoming a bargaining session between the existing institutions, and national Parliaments are in danger of missing out. The Commission has a well-organised lobby and is represented in the Convention. All the working groups have Commission representatives, whose sole task is to defend and extend its interests. The European Parliament, too, thinks as a cohesive body. National Parliaments are not European institutions, however, and cannot organise themselves in quite the same way.
Moreover, member states, and particularly the Franco-German alliance, are beginning to assert themselves. Our last plenary session devoted a great deal of time to debating the French-German plan for two elected presidents—one for the Council and one for the Commission. That will do nothing to link the European Union with its citizens; it will simply create more presidents and politicians, giving more titles and status to the elite class that runs the European Union. The plan will not address the democratic deficit at all.
I thought that it was British policy to resist an elected Commission President, and the Committee certainly opposed such a proposal. Page 7 of the Government's response records that the Committee was
"not in favour of the Commission President being elected."
That comes from paragraph 80 of the original report. At the time—last year—the Government supported that view, and page 7 of their response states:
"We therefore do not believe it would be sensible to politicise the Commission through the election of its President."
There was a happy elision of the Government, the Opposition and the Committee against an elected Commission President. However, it has not lasted.
In the recent plenary session, the Secretary of State for Wales, who represents the Government, supported the French-German proposal word for word. I was

343WH
sitting near him at the time, and that is exactly what he said. His speech is reported in the 111th edition of the Brussels Bulletin, which is put together by British officials for hon. Members' guidance. The Government now support the French Government plan, including the proposal for an elected Commission President.
That is a regrettable development, because it will be impossible for the Government to retrieve any concessions that they subsequently regret. The Convention is turning into an intergovernmental conference, partly because of the institutional bargaining to which I referred, and partly because France, Germany and other member states are engaging at Government level. It will therefore be impossible for the Government to retrieve matters at a subsequent intergovernmental conference, as they seem to believe that they can.
Mr. Hendrick: Does the right hon. Gentleman not recall his Government rejecting the proposed presidency of Jean-Luc Dehaene and insisting on Jacques Santer? We all know what happened to him. Is it not perhaps better to leave it to people in Brussels who know who they are dealing with to choose a Commission President?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The election of Jean-Luc Dehaene would have been a disaster for this country. A more powerful Commission making mistakes on an even bigger scale would have been detrimental to British interests.
The corruption and mismanagement of the Commission that eventually brought about its downfall were deeply rooted in its mode of working and its structure, which long pre-dated Mr. Santer's accession to the presidency. It is flawed as an institution, and that could not be cured by making the least democratic European institution—the Commission—more powerful by making its president elected and therefore making it able to assert itself over other institutions and national Parliaments. That is why I entirely agree with the earlier observations about that, and I regret that they are not now supported by the Government.
I cannot recall whether the Committee Chairman referred to the ever closer union clause in the treaty, but the Committee recommended that it should be removed. I agree with him: it is prejudicial to include in the treaty a presumption in favour of ever closer union, to be used by the European Court of Justice as a reason for further transfer of powers. That is why the Committee, I and a number of members of the Convention from other member states agreed that that should go.
Again, I was disappointed that the Government did not support that recommendation, and the response was simply a waffly reference to the need to ensure that the language of the treaties provides a clear and transparent guide to the policies and objectives of the European Union. We can all agree with that, but the Committee thinks that the clause should go, and I agree. There is a chance that it will go, but I am afraid that it will not be because of pressure from the British Government.
On the existing scrutiny procedure, it is important that we in the national Parliaments do our bit to make a reality of our existing powers. Indeed, I am glad that that has the Government's general support: they agree
344WH
that we need to influence the Council of Ministers in such a way. However, their response does not do full justice to the long list of examples given on page 22 of the report, which says that the scrutiny process is something of a shambles because of the late submission of documents—or, in my experience, because of wrong documents being submitted. I remember attending a Standing Committee to debate the European arrest warrant that had to be adjourned because the Department for Trade and Industry had supplied the wrong documents. It meant that when scrutiny did take place, it was only a day or two before final decisions were to be made. In no realistic sense was the House able to express an opinion and hon. Members could not get their reservations and recommendations acted on by the Government.
We must be more ambitious in our demands. Such things as the scrutiny reserve ought to be respected and enforced, perhaps in the treaty, so that it cannot be overridden, except in extreme and unusual circumstances, by the Council of Ministers. The Commission ought not to have the monopoly of initiative on legislation. It is absurd, in a so-called democratic Europe, that 20 people in Europe, none of them elected, have a monopoly on legislative initiative. If a member state with such a system was to apply for membership of the European Union, it would undoubtedly be turned down because it would be in breach of the Copenhagen criteria on its democratic structures. Therefore, the European Union is not fit for membership of the European Union. We must bring scrutiny under the control of an elected Parliament.
Mr. Hendrick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I wish to conclude. I know that other hon. Members wish to contribute, but I have two final points to make.
I say to the Minister that the United Kingdom Government must back the Committee's demands. I have given several examples of how the Government have not acted on even modest recommendations by the Committee. That is clear from the response that they have given and their actions in the Convention.
Finally, the Government must make no more concessions in the Convention that they will be unable to retrieve. If we are to create a democratic Europe, they must be bolder in their demands; resist the community method taking over from the intergovernmental method of decision making; and improve—indeed, democratise—the intergovernmental method to involve national Parliaments and those whom we represent. If we do not do that, the Convention's very purpose will have failed.
3.31 pm
Mr. Colin Challen: It has dawned on me only in the past 20 minutes or so that I am probably the only Back Bencher present who is not a member of the Committee or here for some other purpose connected to Europe or their position. I have not fled—I am still here, and I congratulate the Committee on an excellent report. Much of it, in

345WH
language that is plain and easy to understand, deals with the internal arrangements for decision making in the European Union. There is no doubt that the internal decision-making processes are necessarily complex, and they probably will remain so. That suggests that the task to make the EU more publicly accountable, at a time when it is being greatly enlarged, will be very difficult.
Enlargement is having the immediate effect of reducing democracy in the EU, inasmuch as the Europewide limits on MEPs are leading to a reduction in representation in existing member states. I note that in paragraphs 92 and 93, in which the Committee considers the relationship between the European Parliament and citizens, the only method suggested to enhance MEPs' relationship with voters is to bring back first-past-the-post elections. In such a good report, I regret that that is such a slim section. Much more must be done, and the voting system does not have much to do with it. MEPs who are trying to represent more than 500,000 voters effectively will still find that a tall order, and it is not helped by their having to do so in two different Parliament buildings, hundreds of miles from each other. Moreover, the media show little interest in any European matter, unless it is bad news.
There should be greater representation, not less. However, that does not necessarily mean more MEPs. We only have to look to the role of our Select Committees to see that parliamentarians can develop their representational role without increasing numbers. The question is how to apply that model to the EU. There could be EU Select Committees, and I see no reason why they should not include national parliamentarians. I cannot see why they could not also bring on board expertise outwith elected Members.
We must develop a strong interrogative culture in the EU. Perhaps I have not read enough on the matter, but I am not aware of any external scrutiny being deployed to investigate EU corruption, the amount of waste that goes on, or the inefficiencies, which some people might see as normal for such a large, multinational organisation.
Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman may or may not be interested to know that, nearly 10 years ago, I promoted a campaign in the House to try to get the functions of our Public Accounts Committee, which has a first-class record of investigating fraud, replicated elsewhere in the European Union, culminating in the Court of Auditors. He will not be surprised to hear that there was anything but enthusiasm for that, because, frankly, most of the other countries do not want anyone to investigate the fraud in the first place.
Mr. Challen: I am grateful for that intervention. It would be better for the hon. Gentleman to find allies in other member states before he launches such a proposal. However, a good point is that national Parliaments across the European Union have different models of scrutiny that the EU could employ. As the report suggests, it is difficult in the EU to pin down responsibility, so we should look for those new models. The EU's relationships might be enhanced if citizens panels or juries were established to consider proposed legislation and, just as important, the impact of
346WH
legislation. The report says that 70 per cent. of European legislation is prepared by junior civil servants. Once drafted, such legislation will no doubt develop a life of its own, with only professional lobbyists aware of its progress or able to influence it. When it is passed into law, how is it monitored? Does anyone stop to ask whether it is working?
We must all be aware of the debate now raging over EU legislation on health food supplements. The matter has led to one of the largest postbags that I have had since being elected. Since the source of the law is European, I suppose I could just tell my constituents to contact their MEP about it, but it falls to national Governments to implement EU legislation, and that is where one of the major problems occurs in accountability. How do we tell people, and not least those who are perhaps not motivated to vote, where all the different responsibilities lie, and that an MP has little influence over such things?
It can be argued that decisions ultimately rest with representatives of national Governments in the Council, but that is true only in a limited sense, whether or not Council meetings are held in public, as they should be. The EU is more than the sum of its parts. Although our national representatives can be questioned, Parliament has little power to do much about it.
What if the legislation is badly drafted or misconceived? There seems little possibility of independent examination or critique that could remove the suspicion that behind the scenes the whole thing has been cast in stone well before it emerges into the public domain. An enlarged EU might well add to that perception. Thus when matters reach a certain level of controversy—the health food supplements directive is a good example—the whole matter should be called in for full, open and transparent examination by citizens' panels, which could include democratically elected representatives.
I can think of other matters that could benefit from such an approach. In pursuit of a single postal market, our services now face a make-or-break test, which, when it has been applied elsewhere in Europe, has led to unwanted consequences, such as higher costs, reduced services and redundancies. What opportunities are available to any citizen to influence such decisions, apart from a vote every five years? I suggest that citizens' panels be given not only the power to investigate issues but powers similar to those of an ombudsman to force the institution in question to respond and take action. Failure to do so could be referred to the European Court of Justice.
To ensure that such panels carry out their duties properly, they should have their own staff, separate from those answerable to the Commission. They could be chaired by MEPs. National parliamentarians, with their vast wealth of experience, could also play a part, adding gravitas and wisdom, and ensuring that a strong relationship develops among representatives at all levels. Although I support Statewatch's call for a European freedom of information Act, I can see that some documents might have to remain confidential. Citizens' panels, however, should be given access to all documents and officials. They should be able to see records of all contacts between EU officials and lobbyists, and all such contacts should be minuted. They should be able to follow the audit trail of any decision

347WH
from start to finish, without fear or favour. The creation of citizens' panels is one proposal that I hope will be taken seriously. Indeed, perhaps it already is, and I claim no originality for the idea.
I believe there is an institutional weakness in another area, too. We hear much about the Europe of the regions, but it has no meaning in a parliamentary sense, at least as far as England goes. The Government have recognised that the English regional democratic dimension is missing, and it is appropriate that that should—as far as European matters go—be dealt with immediately. I say that not least because the electorate are a long way off giving their approval for the establishment of regional assemblies.
Much of our regional economic development strategy has a European dimension, and we should have regional European parliamentary bodies that comprise the relevant Members of both Parliaments and are empowered to oversee regional economic developments. That would remedy the problem with the present arrangement, whereby MPs seem to act only as consultees as and when a strategy is up for review. Directly elected regional assemblies may adequately fill the democratic deficit when they are created, but MPs and MEPs should have a greater role to play, especially in those regions that choose not to go down the assembly route.
The European Union's democratic deficit must be tackled openly and honestly, from both within the institution and without. If the public are not engaged more in the EU's processes, its credibility with them will continue to slide. People should be able to make choices without being bombarded with messages and methods that are cynically designed to get the right result. Criticisms can be levelled, for example, at the way in which the Irish were forced to vote twice for the Nice treaty because the turnout in the first referendum was said not to be high enough. On the basis of that argument, a great many MEPs in this country would be forced to stand again for election. Democratic legitimacy, it seems, is a variable thing.
Denmark will probably hold a referendum on joining the euro in a couple of years' time. However, it is being suggested that the question will be whether to join the euro or leave the EU altogether—one that is guaranteed to get the right result. I wonder whether the Swedes will be asked to consider the same kind of proposition. Presumably, we in Britain will at least have a referendum on a question that springs from a study of the famous five economic tests. We can therefore look forward to much transparency and objectivity when it is our turn to vote. The irony, of course, is that the euro referendum will take place to satisfy the needs of internal party politics more than anything else, and I am not referring only to the Labour party.
People stop voting when they think that it will make no difference. As far as the EU goes, the old anarchist slogan, "Don't bother to vote, because the Government always wins," is coming true by default. Now, as it faces radical enlargement, the EU needs a radical reassessment of its relationship with European citizens. If it thinks that it can plod on with a few internal adjustments—shuffling the cast of characters and making some a tad more accountable—it is making a
348WH
big mistake. It will be like throwing open the first-class salon of the bureaucratic Titanic to its third-class passengers just as the ship hits the iceberg.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next speaker, I should note that I intend to start the winding-up speeches at about 10 minutes to 5, so we do not have that much time. I therefore call on hon. Members to show some self-discipline so that all those who are keen to participate can do so.
3.43 pm
Mr. William Cash: My concern about the Select Committee report is reflected in the minority report, which I published with my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson). I agreed with a substantial portion of the report. However, I have been on the relevant Select Committees—the European Scrutiny Committee and its forerunner, the European Legislation Committee—since 1985 and I have undertaken other activities in the House over most of the past 20 years. I have therefore become somewhat familiar with the subject, and I was stimulated to table something in the order of 130 or 140 amendments to the report. I can summarise them in one word: democracy. Ultimately, they all pointed to the fact that, when we considered the necessary recommendations, the element that was lacking was not whether criticisms had been made but what action would be taken. That is crucial. The Chairman of the Committee made a splendid speech, but we keep hearing suggestions about investigation and that we must analyse the matter further, and the plain fact is that that is no longer enough, and it has not been for a long time.
I go back to the Maastricht treaty, not to mention the Nice and Amsterdam treaties, to which, collectively, I tabled about 500 or 600 amendments, none of which was frivolous. In fact, the Minister's predecessor was good enough to write a personal note to me, in which he commended the nature of my amendments to the Nice treaty. Such matters are serious and go to the heart of our democratic system.
We must decide whether the proposals in the report and the tendency towards the European constitution, which has been virtually stitched up by the European Convention and is exceedingly unrepresentative of public opinion both throughout Europe and in this country, show that an extremely heavy locomotive is thundering along the rails, as we speak. Anyone with a smidgen of realisation about the political implications of the report would be staggered by its lack of intelligent observation and analysis. The European Scrutiny Committee, as a whole, ought to be commended for the seriousness with which it tackled so many such questions, but it has not come up with sufficient answers.
I understand the problem. The whole European integration process, the role of the Commission and its draft treaty proposals duck the fundamental question of accountability and how questions can be asked of unelected Commissioners, for example. I am glad that the report reflects the problems of the lack of transparency in the proceedings. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) told us of his experiences when he was Minister for Europe and the difficulties that he experienced because of the

349WH
activities of Coreper and the A and B list points system. Such procedures are undemocratic, and that matters very much indeed.
I suspect that the train will crash into heavy buffers because of the massive over-regulation that has resulted from a lack of scrutiny and accountability. That will lead to an economic decline that will generate high unemployment. I have written about the matter and make no apology for saying again that the unemployment levels that will follow in the wake of such a regrettable state of affairs will stoke up again the dreadful spectres that we have seen in the past. We will have a mixture of high unemployment, authoritarianism and a lack of democracy.
In certain parts of Europe developments have emerged such as the regrettable advance of Le Pen in France and Haider in Austria. Germany has serious problems in that respect, too. If they escalate as a result of a lack of accountability and scrutiny, if the safety valves of the national Parliaments are taken away—as they are—by the progress of European integration towards a European constitution, and if the democratic deficit continues to increase, there is no doubt that there will be a serious political crisis in Europe.
Angus Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman welcome the fantastic success of the democratic and pro-EU parties in Austria in its recent general election? They all gained at the expense of the Mr. Haider's anti-EU Freedom party.
Mr. Cash: I do, but I also notice that Mr. Haider has not given up. The circumstances that I described are more likely to lead to difficulties in the future, which will not be confined to the countries that we have mentioned. I have great respect for the many European countries that have done fantastically well in developing their democracies. However, those democracies may not all be as deeply rooted as we would like, and by definition not as well rooted as in this country, and we must be extremely wary about how combustible a lack of democracy can be in disadvantageous economic circumstances.
On the question of national Parliaments, the whole concept of ministerial responsibility and accountability has been severely diminished by the way in which the EU has progressed in its constitutional quest. The qualified majority voting system affects each country. There are now some 27 member states, if and when the new accession countries decide to hold their referendums. Poland may say no—we shall see. Qualified majority voting means that decisions taken by Governments in Cabinets such as in 10 Downing street are continually overridden.
When one moves way from the less difficult areas of commerce and trade—although those are not without difficulty—to accepting qualified majority voting on foreign policy matters, which the Prime Minister has virtually agreed to do in today's Financial Times, one moves into very dangerous waters. That also applies to defence and in respect of the levers of government as a whole. Hon. Members, even some members of my own party, may be glad to hear the consequences of such
350WH
actions. I remember well that in 1991, Chevénement said to Lord Hurd, "If the Maastricht treaty goes through you will no longer be able to go to the Gulf." We have heard exactly the same sort of statement from the French Minister only 10 days ago.
The Minister is shaking his head or looking puzzled, I am not sure which, but I assure him that I have the facts at my fingertips. One must be able to carry through the national interest, especially in these dangerous and difficult times. The Prime Minister recognises that there are issues of massive national interest involved and he is struggling to find ways of solving them, as we saw in yesterday's exchange in Prime Minister's Question Time with regard to article 3 of the European convention on human rights. He knows that article 3 must be addressed. That is an uncomfortable subject for him, because by the same token, in a rather Janus-like fashion—or is it a third way? I can never work out which is which—he is promoting the European idealism that is expressed in the remarks that he made in the Financial Times today. He is promoting the European security and defence policy and integration more and more. I challenged him when he returned from St. Malo, and I hesitate to suggest how often I have had to challenge him on the Floor of the House in relation to this further integrationist process. The plain fact is that one cannot have it both ways. One cannot say that one wants more integration, yet still deal with such problems as terrorism that are implicit in the European convention on human rights.
There is a question about legal personality, which I do not need to talk about in detail because it is a rather arcane subject. I have been called on to give advice on that matter in another capacity. I say an emphatic no to legal personality in respect of the European Union because that would emasculate national Parliaments. The problem would go further—this is my real point—and the people who vote in general elections would be emasculated, because if their representatives cannot reflect their views in Parliament though the principle of accountability and our parliamentary process, everything is brought to nothing. That is exactly what is going on.
By the way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you would agree with me is a matter that others must establish from the records of the House, but all I can say to you is this: the bottom line is that the matter is ultimately about democracy itself.
The problems of the concentric circles plan and the whole business of the enhanced co-operation procedure, which is endorsed further and deeper by the European constitution, are yet further examples of creating massive barriers to the right to ask questions and accountability. The question in the report about how to adjust procedures to make things better is not just technical. We need the procedures because as Maine said in the famous book "Ancient Law", justice is to be found in the interstices of procedure.
We also have to examine the historical and political landscape in order to make a judgment about practical considerations. I mentioned that the Prime Minister is on the rack over asylum and immigration and the connection of that with terrorism. One cannot just make a statement on pieces of paper subject to the acquis communautaire, which means that they cannot be changed, and then turn round and say, "Well, actually,

351WH
we've got a real problem here. Terrorists are rife in our land and there is the prospect of more to come." We could not do anything about that because the charter of fundamental rights, which is to become legally binding, and/or the European convention on human rights bind us in a fashion that is reminiscent of what Rousseau said about a social contract: why do people bind themselves in order to be free?
Mr. Richard Spring: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most fantastic U-turns made by the Government relates to the charter of fundamental rights? We understand that our representative at the Convention, the Secretary of State for Wales, who was previously Minister for Europe, said that the British Government would accept its incorporation into a treaty as long as that did not apply in UK law. My hon. Friend will know that that is nonsense in practice.
Mr. Cash: Indeed, it is complete nonsense. Mr. Richard Plender QC appeared before the Committee when the former Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), said that the charter of fundamental rights would be no more than the Beano—I had words with him about that in Committee. Subsequently, we had the expert opinion from Mr. Plender, who said that whether or not that was made legally binding, it would be interpreted and used by the courts in a similar fashion. We now know that the Government are committed to the principle of a European constitution, with everything that that involves in respect of diminishing and depriving the people of this country of their right to vote, and incorporating the legal phantasmagoria that comes through the charter of fundamental rights.
Mr. Hendrick: I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Gentleman, even though I disagree with him on many things. However, I wish that he and the leader of the Conservative party would not indulge in this fire and brimstone stuff about terrorists being rife in this country as a result of our having relaxed the immigration laws. He will be aware that we have not signed up to the Schengen agreement—the UK is one of the few EU countries that has not done so. I wish that he would withdraw from the kind of stuff that he is coming out with.
Mr. Cash: I am more than happy to accept the hon. Gentleman's gentle rebuke. I understand the spirit in which he made it, but he knows as well as I do that there is no one in the House who is less racist than I. I take enormous interest in the third world and I have done much in practice about it. We are faced with problems that the Prime Minister has acknowledged in stark terms, and of which we need to take account in the context of the legislative process that we are considering.
The present issue is intimately connected with how the treaties were scrutinised in Parliament—that scrutiny was, by and large, inadequate—and with the implementation of the directives and the other pieces of legislation, many of which emerged from one line in a treaty that produced a plethora of further legislation. The questions of the party list system and proportional
352WH
representation have already been discussed. I am strongly opposed to the party list system, which is another form of tyranny that needs to be overcome.
I have the gravest concern that the papers that are coming from the constitutional convention under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), charming as she may be, are wholly inadequate to deal with the question of how we get back accountability for national Parliaments. The absurd suggestion, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned and which came first from the Foreign Secretary and is now endorsed by the hon. Lady in her latest emanations on the subject, that two thirds of national Parliaments might use a red or yellow card system, is an outrage in constitutional terms. It is nonsense to imagine that one could get Parliaments together. The Foreign Secretary referred to these matters in a suggestion in his article in The Economist, and proposals are being developed, so we know that things are progressing all the time. It is constitutional nonsense that does not need any further explanation. The key point—[Interruption. I would be happy to give a full explanation, but Mr. Deputy Speaker would, quite rightly, not want that.
I say no to this constitution—no, full stop—and to the referendum. If we must have referendums, they should be held in this country and in all European countries. I do not want a Europewide referendum, as suggested in these fake proposals, thanks very much. This is ultimately about the supremacy of Parliament and therefore of democracy. The proposals, including all the matters relating to national Parliaments and to the scrutiny process, must be renegotiated drastically so that we can achieve a consistent scrutiny process that will work in the interests of the individual Parliaments and recognise the importance of political co-operation in Europe.
The veto by national Parliaments must be reaffirmed. In the light of such an historical political landscape, we must examine these questions and do something about them—we must have more political will. The Prime Minister is on the rack over the European convention on human rights and, under the Lord Hoffmann judgment of 1999, it is crystal clear—as I have said in the House from the Front Bench—that this Parliament has an absolute right to legislate subsequent to the 1998 Act in any manner that we choose, providing that we do so expressly and unambiguously. That was a clear statement by Lord Hoffmann in the House of Lords. The same will have to apply to the European Communities Act 1972 because we are heading towards a situation in which the European constitution will absorb this country into a federal system. As Churchill said, we should be associated but not absorbed.
4.5 pm
Mr. Wayne David: I warmly welcome this report because I firmly believe that Europe matters. To the people of this country, it matters that the European Union works. That is because the economy of this country is now inextricably linked to the economies of other European states. The single market is a reality. It is becoming ever deeper and increasingly successful. In my constituency of Caerphilly in south Wales, manufacturing is now the bedrock of industry. Most of what is produced is exported to the single market. We

353WH
want that market to deepen and I want more jobs to be created in my constituency as a consequence. It is important that Europe works.
Some issues concern us all. I am thinking about the environment. We are all concerned about pollution and we are all aware that pollution does not recognise national boundaries. If we want a cleaner world, it is important to tackle such issues on a transnational and, especially, a European basis. Issues such as immigration and asylum loom large in our consciousness. Does anybody seriously believe that, in today's world, we can tackle such complex and sensitive issues on a nation-state basis? We cannot. We have to co-operate with our European partners to ensure that we have policies that are responsible, humane and truly effective.
Europe is a reality. It is with us and I want it to be successful. That is why this report is extremely important. It acknowledges that, although Europe is a reality, it is not popular with the people of this country. One of the main reasons for that is, as the report says, a disconnection or disengagement between the people and the European Union institutions. The report contains a number of realistic and practical proposals to bridge that gap—to remake the connection between the people and the institutions. The central thesis of the report is 100 per cent. correct: national Parliaments are the best-placed bodies to make that connection.
The report makes a number of specific proposals and I want to focus on one or two of them. The report refers to all EU institutions. The Council of Ministers is arguably the most important one and it should meet in public when it is making legislation. That is a fundamental point of tremendous importance. On a similar issue of democracy, the European Commission could be more transparent, and the European Parliament, which is engaged more and more in the legislative processes of co-decision, should be more transparent and open.
The report also refers to other matters. It touches on some of the debates about the Convention that have focused the minds of hon. Members. It makes no sense for the Council of Ministers to continue to have a six-month presidency; there should be more permanency. The Council must adopt a more strategic role in developing the EU, and I welcome the suggestion that there should be a president of the Council of Ministers. That would provide a greater sense of purpose for the Commission.
I should like to focus on the national Parliaments. Debate has moved on since the suggestion made by the Prime Minister in his speech in Warsaw that there be a second Chamber of the European Parliament consisting of national parliamentarians. However, credit must be given to our Prime Minister for raising the matter of the importance of the role of national Parliaments in the European architecture at that critical time. MEPs, of course, are also parliamentarians. In fact, I am a former MEP. We need to get away from the all too frequent sniping between MEPs and national parliamentarians, and should recognise that MPs and MEPs have a joint mission to ensure greater democracy and parliamentary involvement. The report's proposals are, therefore, warmly to be welcomed. In fact, I would like there to be
354WH
a Grand Committee of this House, to which MEPs were regularly invited to participate in on an equal basis with hon. Members.
The working group chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) proposed that national Parliaments should play a key role in ensuring that the principle of subsidiarity is upheld, and that is important. Although I certainly concur with the earlier comments about the need for the watchdog to have real teeth, it is firmly established that national Parliaments have a key role to play in ensuring that the principle is upheld. I warmly welcome the fact that we are having a debate about the possible introduction of a red or yellow card system. I recommend that members of the Convention support that proposal and make sure that it is beefed up.
Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman explain, either now or at a later date, how that process would work? Subsidiarity has not worked so far, and national Parliaments do not have a cohesive or corporate identity.
Mr. David: I would be happy to elaborate on that now, as that was my next point, anyway. If we are serious about extending the role of national Parliaments, it is important that we have a dual perspective, and envisage the role of national Parliaments increasing not in each member state, important though that is, but internationally. There is scope for developing the Conference of Community and European Affairs Committees, the body charged with responsibility for links between the European Scrutiny Committees of different member states. I attended a meeting of COSAC this week. It must be said that it was a difficult meeting, but progress was made on that front.
It was agreed this very week that, in future, COSAC will make decisions on the basis of qualified majority voting. Why? Because, realistically, that is the only way that we can come to any sort of determination at European level on meaningful issues. Agreement has been reached on that and I hope that, in the next few months, there will also be agreement on the establishment of a secretariat to ensure that COSAC works properly and that information is provided to national parliaments, which will effectively police the principle of subsidiarity.
Mr. Hendrick: Regarding the concept of a red or yellow card, I can see where my hon. Friend and the Government are going, but I find it difficult to accept a red card; perhaps there should just be a yellow one. I am all in favour of a watchdog, but not particularly of one with teeth. I should like to see a scrutiny body that could, perhaps, bark and give the Government or the European Parliament a good gumming, but nothing more.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before the hon. Gentleman replies—I do not want to interrupt the flow of debate—if hon. Members who want to speak are to be fitted in, there has to be a certain amount of self-discipline in not being provoked to ask questions of those who are speaking.
Mr. David: I will try not to take the canine analogy too far, but I would say that we must have institutions that can bite.

355WH
The process of European scrutiny has to be undertaken at national as well as European level. I should like to make a few closing remarks about our work in this Chamber. The European Scrutiny Committee does an excellent job, but there is scope for its powers to be increased. The Government should take the scrutiny reserve far more seriously, although the fault lies not so much with them as with the processes at European level, which need to be changed so that it can be formally recognised and incorporated into European proceedings. In addition, our engagement with Coreper can be increased substantially and made far more streamlined and transparent. Perhaps we can discuss that at a future date.
In conclusion, the report is important. Nation states are the building blocks of the European Union. I am firmly committed to the European principle. I recognise that sub-national bodies have an important role to play, as do national bodies that do not have full legislatures. Nation states are the anchors of the European Union. This House should take European issues and European scrutiny far more seriously. For example, this important debate should be taking place on the Floor of the House, not in Westminster Hall. It is a sad reflection of the lack of priority that the House of Commons gives to European issues that that is the case. Nevertheless, I am glad that the Government have responded in a largely positive manner to the report. Above all, it is important to see the debate not as an end in itself but as part of an ongoing process. All the members of the European Scrutiny Committee are determined to take the matter forward; I hope that we can take other Members of this House with us.
4.18 pm
Angus Robertson: I welcome the chance to take part in the debate. As a member of the European Scrutiny Committee I should like to put on record my appreciation of the professional and convivial convenorship of that Committee by the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood). I associate myself with almost everything that he said in his opening speech, but beg to differ on the issue of proportional representation. The Committee took a decision when only half of its members were there and, with the Chairman's casting vote, decided against the Government's standing policy. I also put on record that I, like other Committee members, believe that an increasing amount of the Committee's work should be done in public. I appreciate that that may not be possible in every circumstance, but I would welcome moves to see more of its work being done in public.
We are discussing the role of national Parliaments, and it will be no surprise if someone speaks on behalf of the Scottish National party or Plaid Cymru. I find it rather curious, when talking about national Parliaments, that no other right hon. or hon. Members have talked in any detail about the role of the national Parliament of Scotland, the National Assembly for Wales or of Northern Ireland's democratically elected Parliament, which, under the right circumstances, we all hope will reconvene soon.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) made a passing reference to sub-national bodies while looking in my direction, so I assume that he believes that Wales is sub-national. Perhaps that explains why his previous
356WH
candidacy was unsuccessful. He was campaigning in one of the safest socialist seats in Europe, but was defeated by my sister party, Plaid Cymru, which views Wales as a nation and not as sub-national.
Mr. David: The hon. Gentleman did not listen carefully enough. I referred to sub-national bodies, but also to national bodies that do not possess legislative powers like those of the House. I gently remind him that elections to the National Assembly for Wales will be held in a couple of months time, and I have absolute confidence, given the small blip that occurred in Wales, that those traditional Labour seats will nevertheless return to the fold.
Angus Robertson: I am grateful for that intervention, although I am sure that the Labour party did not view losing one of its safest seats as a minor blip. However, the hon. Gentleman has now put that on record.
It is a statement of constitutional fact that we have other national Parliaments within the United Kingdom, which is why I was a little confused by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) when he said that it would be impossible to create a supranational democracy. That was from a unionist and a member of a unionist party, which I suppose espouses the union of the United Kingdom and says that it is a good working example of supranational democracy—or perhaps the Conservative and Unionist party does not view Scotland as a nation.
While on the subject of supranational democracy and the inclusion of sub-member state Parliaments or assemblies, I would like clarification on an issue that has been widely discussed. What has happened with partnership status for sub-member state nations or regions? Is it supported by the Government? It is often said that the measure is blocked by Spain, but I was under the impression that one of the closest working relationships in the EU was that between the British and Spanish Prime Ministers. Perhaps that relationship does not go far enough to overcome the difficulties that the Spanish Government have with the subject.
Of course, the background to today's debate is a movement throughout Europe—of powers going up to the European level. Indeed, the hon. Member for Caerphilly rightly pointed out that in important areas, like the environment, but also on key issues, such as terrorism, if we did not have the European Union we would have to invent it. I am sure that we could all come up with a list—some short, many longer—of improvements that we would like to see, but there is undoubtedly a need for a confederal international organisation for our continent. On one hand, powers are going up; but on the other hand, they are going down by being devolved.
Although in general I am glad that the UK and other European countries are seeking to improve Governments through the EU, the union has made some profoundly damaging decisions. I represent a fishing constituency, in the extreme east of which up to 40 per cent. of jobs depend on an industry that could be nearing its end. I warn the Government most strongly that those who seek to improve Europe should make every effort to reach the right decisions in order to convince everybody in our communities that the EU is

357WH
to their benefit. I am not convinced that that was the case in the UK's involvement in fishing negotiations. Those involved did not even seek to get the subject put on the agenda at the most recent meeting of the Council of Ministers.
One of the issues mentioned in the report was openness, and a comparison was made between the EU and North Korea: the decision-making process is not transparent, not accountable, not democratic and subsidiarity plays no part in it. I draw the Minister's attention to a systemic and fundamental breakdown of the four principles, not in the EU but in the UK, in how we seek to scrutinise and have democratic oversight of policy. That follows on from the report on scrutiny in the House of Commons because this is about the role of national Parliaments. Although I would like the Scottish Parliament to have the powers of a normal Parliament over all EU matters, unfortunately, this Parliament retains the say on them. The European Scrutiny Select Committee recommended:
"The Government should relax the confidentiality provision in the concordat sufficiently to be able to indicate in EMs whether discussions have taken place with the devolved institutions and, as far as possible, on what subjects."
The Government's reply agreed:
"In future, where an Explanatory Memorandum states that a minister from one or more devolved administrations also has an interest, the Government intends this to indicate that those devolved administrations have been consulted on the terms of the Explanatory Memorandum and on its subject matter".
This has cross-party support on the Committee, and it was reinforced by the Committee chair earlier and by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) in an intervention.
Mr. Connarty: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Much as I enjoy my friend the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) raising that point, and I call him friend because we are from the same country, the debate is on a completely different report. He is holding a debate on the report by the same Committee on scrutiny in the House of Commons and not on the report on democracy and accountability in the EU.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said and I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Moray has as well. I am convinced that he will bring his remarks entirely into order.
Angus Robertson: I am grateful for the guidance of the Chair and am addressing myself to the role of national Parliaments. It is a hugely important issue. If there is to
be a role for national Parliaments—and I wish that it were not this Parliament—in deciding European issues, we need clarity from the UK Government that the system to which they have agreed is working. I cite in evidence several explanatory memoranda that the European Scrutiny Select Committee had to deal with recently. This is important because not one Member of the House is elected with any mandate to decide on matters of agriculture, fisheries and several other issues that are wholly devolved to the Scottish Parliament, yet we have oversight when it comes to the interrelationship with the European Union. That is beyond debate and
358WH
dispute—it is enshrined in the Scotland Act 1998. However, following the agreement of the UK Government that we on the European Scrutiny Committee are to be expressly told that the devolved Administrations are included in discussions—and I take these only as examples—there has been no mention whatsoever of the Scottish Executive's involvement in the common agricultural policy; the CAP review of milk quotas; the execution of confiscation orders, which is a matter of Scots law; and fisheries. The fisheries representatives in my constituency, the people elected to deal with the matter, are interested to know why they have not been involved.
The Scottish Executive is involved in one area. The Scottish Executive's Justice Department is included in discussions with the Lord Chancellor's Department. I welcome that, because it allows members of the European Scrutiny Committee to have oversight of policy and understand that there has been co-operation, which has been enshrined in the concordat, although it is said that that should be confidential.
The answer may be that the Scottish Executive have not shown the initiative to seek input in the CAP, the common fisheries policy and the Scottish legal system. The political consequences of that are for the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats to answer. It is a Labour Government in the UK, and a Labour and Liberal coalition in the Scottish Executive. In fact, it is a Liberal Democrat Minister who is responsible for the CFP and the CAP. We need clarification.
Mr. Michael Moore: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously venturing the proposition that Ross Finnie, the Liberal Democrat Minister for Environment and Rural Development, played absolutely no role in arguing the case for a better deal for Scottish fishermen in the context of the CFP at the recent negotiations?
Angus Robertson: Ross Finnie's bag-carrying role in representing Scotland in Europe is well known. The fact that he has never led a delegation at a European discussion, despite representing more than 70 per cent. of the fishing industry in the UK, is well understood in fishing communities. The fundamental breakdown on that important issue lies either here or with Edinburgh. I hope that the Minister, in his winding-up speech, will help us understand where that breakdown lies.
I move on to the Convention, which many previous speakers have mentioned. I wish to put on record my appreciation of all members of the Convention, be they representing the UK Parliament or other bodies. Members present would not expect me to ignore the important role played by Professor Sir Neil MacCormick MEP, the only democratically elected Scottish representative on the Convention.
I seek clarification on the famed yellow and red cards. The Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Clydesdale, talked about the need for bite and bark. I agree with the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) that such a system is an improvement, although I note that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is not especially convinced. My confusion arises from the fact that I do not know from where the proposal is coming. If one

359WH
reads the conclusions of the working group that the hon. Lady chairs, no mention is made of a new and specific system.
Mr. Cash: I can enlighten the hon. Gentleman. As far as I know, it is contained in the Foreign Secretary's article in The Economist. That is Government policy in the making, and has been translated into the words of the person who represents the Government and Parliament on the Praesidium.
Angus Robertson: I am grateful for that clarification, but I am still waiting to see the legal text. It is important for all Members to consider that proposal in some depth so that we can come to a considered view. However, on balance it would be a move of progress to have a system that guaranteed subsidiarity for state Parliaments. Speaking as someone who believes in a confederal Europe and in the independence of member states in the EU, which will soon include many countries from central and eastern Europe that regained their independence only recently, I welcome the constitution. Those countries will maintain their independence within the EU, even under the proposed constitutional treaty. I join those who say that it is necessary to hold a referendum on something that is so important to every part of the EU. It is up to each member state to decide how to verify important constitutional changes. I would not dream of telling other EU states which method they should choose. However, I would favour a referendum in this country so that the argument can be had on the workings of the EU and its future.
In conclusion, I should like to add my support to the report that the Committee Chairman introduced. I think that it is a valuable contribution to a greater understanding among a greater number of people of the workings of the EU and the role of the democratic process in that. I should like to ask the Minister three specific questions. First, on the workings of EU business between the Government and the devolved Administrations in the UK, are the Government in favour of the concordat being reviewed, as was supported by the European Scrutiny Committee? If the Government support the review, reform and opening up of the concordat so that we shall have transparency, accountability, proper democracy and subsidiarity in the UK, when will that happen and when will the House be able to consider the proposed changes to the concordat?
Secondly, on the involvement of national Parliaments, what is the UK doing to support the role of the Scottish Parliament in EU business? At the next meeting of the Convention at the beginning of next month, will the Secretary of State for Wales argue vigorously that Scotland should be able to have full partner status within the EU if it so wishes? Similarly, will the Secretary of State argue at that meeting for the improved representation and rights of sub-member state regions and nations? Thirdly, do the Government support the Scottish Executive having the automatic right to raise cases at the European Court of Justice?
4.38 pm
Mr. Michael Connarty: Much as I enjoyed the rehearsal of all the arguments to do with the questions at the sub-state level, we must consider the
360WH
Committee's report on democracy and accountability in the EU, which was excellently introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood). Before talking about that topic, I shall say a few words about the Chairman, sparing his blushes. It has been a privilege to have him on the Committee. The fact that he chose to remain with us—he is a former member of the Defence Committee—has brought great benefits. With the two reports, one of which is not before us for scrutiny, we have made a major contribution to the debate on Parliament's role in European business. That has certainly had an impact on Departments. I had the privilege of going to a seminar on European scrutiny at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and found that it was on its mettle in looking to keep itself from being called to the attention of the Chairman of our Committee for misdemeanours. We are certainly making an impact.
I also commend the work of my hon. Friends the Members for Caerphilly (Mr. David) and for Preston (Mr. Hendrick), former Members of the European Parliament. They have added breadth to the way in which the Committee carries out its business and have lent a great deal to the report. I have learned much from their contributions.
The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) over-egged the pudding. He started off so well by correctly signalling the worry of most British citizens about the methodology of the European Union in legislating. The Commission, the generator of almost all legislation, is an oligarchy. It is not a democratic institution. It may have been correct to start like that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly said, we were forming a common market. However, now we are into so many other fields it is wrong to leave the burden of power in the Commission's hands.
The other part of the process that we are trying to make democratic and accountable is the Executive—which are the Governments. In reality, Governments are not the same as Parliaments. They cross that divide. They take the king's shilling, or the president's shilling—it depends how one describes the Prime Minister. Parliaments carry out the orders and programme of Governments. To our great cost and embarrassment—this sometimes happens even in the Labour party—it is not always the same programme as we thought we were elected on. Nevertheless, it is carried out.
There is the oligarchy of the Commission and the programme of the Executive. Then we have the Parliaments, and that is where the Committee comes in. That is who the Committee tries to speak for. It is the parliamentarians, who do not have the burden of office or the responsibility of collectively carrying out the Executive's programme, who speak for the citizen. As the right hon. Member for Wells said so well at the start of his speech, they tell us of the problems with the machinery of the European Union.
That is one of the reasons—it is not the only reason—why people do not turn out for elections. Most people do not know who their MEP is. It is easy for people with a particular allegiance, because they can name their member of the Praesidium because he is a member of their party. Most citizens do not have that connection because they are turned off from politics partly by the media and partly by politicians.

361WH
The question is who should scrutinise. I believe that it is the job of parliamentarians. It is our job. As the Chairman said, the report mentions that we should be scrutinising annual work reports for the Commission, but in a larger forum led by the European Scrutiny Committee, possibly in alliance with the Foreign Affairs Committee and other Members of Parliament.
Mr. Cash: Would the hon. Gentleman agree—I think that we get on well on these matters—that it is not enough to scrutinise, but that Parliaments should insist, so that a measure of political will goes with it? If they do not like something, particularly in the context of qualified majority voting in other countries, scrutiny necessarily carries with it the right to say no—that is, to continue to use the veto.
Mr. Connarty: I take a different view. The hon. Gentleman said that we get on well. I think that we have basically rubbed many of the sharp edges off our personalities over the past three or four years as members of the Committee. I can remember some very heated exchanges at the start, and we still have some now. On the question of veto, we would probably continue to fall out. Qualified majority voting has favoured the United Kingdom in about 97 per cent. of cases. As a member of a larger organisation—I think that the larger European Union is a democratic institution as well as a market—we have to give and take. If we are winning 97 per cent. of cases, we should accept that the system favours our country's point of view.
We are beginning to get a grip on pre-Council scrutiny and post-Council scrutiny. We are beginning to demand better written responses from Ministers about what went on in Councils of Ministers. I have said, on the subject of departmental briefings, that obfuscation is of no use. A smartly presented civil servant's reply to Parliament that leads us to ask what exactly people meant by what they said, will lead also to citizens not trusting the Council of Ministers. We need clear written responses and we need more evidence sessions or debates on Council business before people will believe that there is democratic accountability.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen) has returned. There is one point on which I agree with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). I am deeply disturbed that the opportunities that Standing Committees offer for any parliamentarian to put any Minister from any Department under scrutiny on any topic that the Committees choose, and the opportunities to debate the substance of that topic, are not often taken up. Few non-members of Standing Committees go along to them. I want to say on the record that many members of Standing Committees only go along to them because the Whips tell them to. They do not want to be there and they do not take part in debate or scrutiny. They simply attend to their mail, allowing the Opposition, and only the Opposition, to quiz the Minister. However, if a Parliament has a large majority from one party, and if no members of that party are quizzing the Minister, the majority party is failing in its duty. The Opposition is in opposition precisely because it represents a smaller
362WH
number of people. The majority party, and not the Opposition, is responsible for representing the concerns of most people on the EU.
We have to consider the operation of the European Standing Committees. People should become members of those Committees because they volunteer to and because they are interested in Europe and in representing the views of businesses and individuals in their constituencies. Parliament has a long way to go before it gets accountability right.
Paragraph 47 of the report is on scrutiny. The explanatory memorandums that we receive are based on information from the Commission. That information does not come quickly enough and it is not full enough. We are not able to see how an initial idea leads to a decision being made in the Council. We say in paragraph 47 that we should be allowed to intervene more effectively in that process and that we should have enough time to do so. Scrutiny should not be regarded as being all right as long as it does not slow the Minister down in getting his policies through, or slow the Council of Ministers down in reaching agreements. We have the right to scrutinise.
In paragraph 50, we say:
"We emphasise that any deadlines set by the European Council and the timing of the negotiations intended to meet such deadlines must provide enough time for national parliamentary scrutiny in advance of Council decisions on new texts."
Does the Minister agree with that? If so, what will he do to ensure that that happens while we are in government?
We did not want a Commission president. Everyone was agreed on that. But now someone has done a backflip, because the Germans and the French have come up with a different proposal. We were clear. We wanted there to be a president of the Council, who would obviate the wasteful process of having six-monthly cycles of new presidencies. If there were a proper rolling programme, it would not matter who was wearing the president's hat, as long as the programme was kept to. If that programme were agreed correctly, we could debate it properly and see it progressing. The president—elected by the Council—would ensure that the programme was kept to. We would be able to hold that person accountable. What we said in paragraph 80 of the report has now been overturned.
I want to finish by speaking about the European Union election system. The Chairman made an important point and I am sadly disappointed about the fact that we went over to the system of proportional representation in large blocks, so that there was one list for Scotland. It does not make any sense at all. People in Scotland do not know who their MEP is, unless they have a party affiliation to that MEP. That is the reality. They do not know if there is anyone they can go to or if anyone is carrying their flag for them or raising issues for them. We have lost the connection between the citizen and the European Union.
I go along with the Chairman because we lost the vote on the casting vote of the Chair. The Committee report says that we should have a first-past-the-post system. Paragraph 93 states that we should have
"a critical re-examination of the system"
and that we should have an electoral boundary, so that people know who speaks for them in Europe. If we do not have that, we cannot work for the citizen. As

363WH
parliamentarians, we and the Government have a role to take into account the needs of the citizen, not ignore them. When they vote on European matters—not many people bother doing so at the moment—they must feel that they have a connection with Europe. Otherwise, they will feel that it is not worth participating in such elections.
4.50 pm
Mr. Michael Moore: It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), whose comments, by and large, I support, although he will not be surprised to learn that I disagreed with some of them. He made a passionate case for the role of Parliament to be expanded to take account of what goes on in Europe in our name and the names of our constituents. The report is timely and thoughtful, and I commend the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), my political neighbour, for the work that he and his Committee have done and the debate that they have provoked.
The Committee was right to place emphasis on the disconnection between ordinary citizens and the institutions of the European Union. We always agonise about being disconnected from our voters. That is even more of a reality for the different parts of the European Union. The Committee made important observations about some of the problems that the European Union inevitably has as a result of its size and the unique combination of supranational and member state authority. Many issues are at the forefront in the Convention on the Future of Europe, which has been tackling a range of different issues. Again, the Committee was right to focus its report on disconnection and how national Parliaments can play a stronger role.
In his opening speech the hon. Member for Clydesdale, the Chairman of the Committee, highlighted many of the failings of the current situation and I agree with much of his analysis. Where I would part company with him and the hon. Member for Falkirk, East is on the issue of the elections to the European Parliament. I recognise that there are difficulties. The hon. Gentleman made a valid point about the loss of connection between individual citizens and their MEPs but, under the previous system, with vast regions in Scotland, many people had no idea who their MEP was, particularly in the south of Scotland, which I represent in part.
While there are limitations and difficulties, if we move back from a system of proportional representation to one of first past the post, we would create difficulties for the representation of political opinion in Britain in the European Parliament.
Mr. Connarty: The hon. Gentleman will have noted that the previous position of the Committee was somehow to bring in a new constituency configuration. It would not necessarily do away with proportional representation, but it would make people re-connect with the person for whom they voted.
Mr. Moore: I apologise if I have misrepresented the thrust of what the hon. Gentleman was saying. There are ways of improving what we have, which perhaps could deal with his concerns and still retain proportionality.
364WH
In just over a year, we will see a significant enlargement of the European Union, and it is right that we are focused at present on the reform agenda. The European Union is often too remote, unaccountable and distant. It is often hard enough for Members of Parliament to relate to it, never mind the wider population. We have all had experience of gaining access to different parts of the European Union. Some of the Commission's buildings are commendably open—more so than Whitehall. However, it is difficult to penetrate the cordons that surround meetings of the Council of Ministers. I agree with the thrust of many of the contributions to the debate: we must open up the meetings that operate in our name. We must have the ability to scrutinise the Council of Ministers when it is in legislative mode.
Angus Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman's party agree with the European Scrutiny Committee that the concordats dealing with European Union business between the United Kingdom Government and devolved Administrations should be opened up, so that that business is transparent, too?
Mr. Moore: The principles of transparency and freedom of information should extend between the Scottish Parliament and Westminster as they should between Westminster and Europe. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman, although I suspect that we have different motives for supporting such a proposal.
There are many ways in which the Commission and the Council of Ministers can become more accountable, but we are debating the future structures of Europe and are in danger of being sidetracked by concerns about the presidency of the Council, and whether that will rotate on a six-month basis as it does at present and whether it will have an elected president. We must listen to the views of many of the smaller countries in the European Union about the proposals that we have heard so far from France and Germany. It seems that the Government support those proposals, and that is bad news. Can the Minister confirm the position?
The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) referred to the morass of unaccountable bodies in Europe that make many decisions. Sadly, we are ignorant about their activities and have no potential to understand what they do. The Committee is well represented in the Chamber. It does sterling work and tries to deal with many of the inadequacies of the scrutiny process. As a collective body, we must make a stronger fist of holding Ministers to account.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, East made an important point about the limited number of times that people attend European Standing Committees. Most of those present today are the usual suspects, who have a great interest in Europe and who turn out regularly for such debates. The Minister has great European credentials, but I hope that he will keep arguing with his colleagues in the Government that there are perhaps better ways in which to look at business in the Council of Ministers before it is concluded. We should have more time to discuss European business on the Floor of the House, and not always be remaindered here in Westminster Hall, where the opportunities to discuss Europe are too infrequent. At present, we have to put up with a debate every six months ahead of the European

365WH
Council. We do not have the chance to debate matters when there is an interim meeting in Brussels every three months. The inadequacies are legion.
We must insist on the principle of subsidiarity and that must be the focus of the reform process. It is essential that we make decisions locally, when possible, and that that is done nationally if necessary. We should make decisions at a European level when appropriate—examples of that have been given throughout the afternoon. We must clarify what subsidiarity means and ensure that there is a model that gets the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales built into the process.
A constitution for Europe is the right way to do that. If a charter of fundamental rights is included, citizens will know the part that they play in Europe. If we combine those principles and if the Convention is allowed to do its work properly, the Europe about which we are worried at present will be reformed and a better place.
5 pm
Mr. Richard Spring: I warmly congratulate the Chairman and members of the European Scrutiny Committee on producing the excellent report and their scrutiny of European legislation. That is often a difficult job, but the Committee does it with much competence, and that is valued by all Members. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who contribute eloquently to the Convention's proceedings.
The European Scrutiny Committee's June report was excellent. The bulk of its recommendations were pragmatic and wise, and would certainly strengthen democracy and accountability in the European Union if they were put into practice. Several Members made that point in excellent speeches, and in an ecumenical spirit, I mention the thoughtful speech of the hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen).
The report points the right way forward and gives a sense of direction to the European Union on ways to increase greatly the role of national Parliaments. The Conservative party is in sympathy with that approach, as it is the way to tackle the disconnection between the EU and its peoples and to restore ownership of its institutions to member states. The point made by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) about elections and representation in the European Parliament is important. I note that the Liberal Democrats are moving away from their diversion to proportional representation. I suppose that that is about as categorical a statement as we are likely to get.
Mr. Moore: I know that the hon. Gentleman would not wilfully misinterpret something. He will find our enthusiasm undiminished, but our recognition of reality slightly more focused.
Mr. Spring: A recognition of reality would be a major achievement for the Liberal Democrats.
366WH
It is therefore all the more disappointing that the Convention on the Future of Europe is, in reality, taking insufficient notice of those who want the EU to be opened up and those who understand that national Parliaments are the political bodies with which most people in Europe identify. That point was powerfully made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells. The Laeken declaration called for the European Union to be brought closer to citizens, but that can happen only when national Parliaments are involved more closely in the EU's workings. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) rightly pointed out the ultimate consequences of the continuation of that disconnection.
The European Union will become closer to its peoples and more democratic only when its leaders and elite understand that there is no pan-European demos. Frankly, our electorates do not think politically in Europe-wide terms. The political institutions to which they look first for democratic redress are our national Parliaments.
Romano Prodi may hope for an advanced supranational democracy and many on the Convention may be engaged in building a European state that they perceive to be democratic, but if they succeed in building their dream, they will have made something that cannot be truly democratic by its very nature. It will have been built from the top down rather than the bottom up. If the EU has an institutional failing, that is it. Too much of its progress has involved doing things for people, not letting its peoples take the lead and giving our citizens a sense of proper involvement and ownership.
It is to the national Parliaments that we must look if we hope to democratise the EU. Of course, we recognise that they are not perfect institutions, but at least the people of Europe understand them, which is more than can be said for European bodies as a whole.
It is symptomatic of much thinking in Europe that the Franco-German contribution to the Convention mentions national Parliaments only as an afterthought. We must be realistic. The pattern of thinking and the architecture set out by the Franco-German alliance seem inevitably to carry the day in the absence of a clear vision of such architecture from our own Government. That has been further borne out in the three texts concerning the role of national Parliaments that have emerged from the Convention: the working group reports on subsidiarity and on national Parliaments, and Valéry Giscard d'Estaing's draft constitution.
Much has been made of the proposals, especially by the Government, and I agree that they are good as far as they go, but it is a depressing fact that they do not go very far. Indeed, they are badly inadequate. The working group on subsidiarity rightly recognised that the question of subsidiarity is political. I acknowledge the work of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston and others, but the proposals would give the national Parliaments no real power. I am glad that there has been some fresh thinking, which has been alluded to this afternoon, on the ability of national Parliaments to stop Commission proposals. All institutions have a natural tendency to want more power for themselves, and it is not hard to understand that, unless national Parliaments have the right not merely to warn against breaches in principle, but to enforce measures to address

367WH
that—enforcement, not just warning, was the word rightly used by the Committee in its report—the EU's centralising tendencies will continue.
Reservations on subsidiarity expressed by a third of national Parliaments, for example, should be enough to halt legislation if, after the exchange of views proposed by the working group, that legislation was still deemed to fail the subsidiarity test. The issue needs further exploration, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone is right. The rigidity of the whipping system in so many of the national Parliaments causes difficulties that must be addressed if we are to make the proposition viable.
The national Parliaments also have a crucial role to play in ensuring that the exercise of power in the EU is made accountable. Our European Scrutiny Committee performs excellently in circumstances that are not always ideal, but it has long been a just criticism that too much EU business is done in a way that is convenient for Governments and bureaucracy, but not in the best interests of everyone else.
I am glad that a cross-party consensus—indeed, a European consensus—is emerging and that those involved believe that the European Council should be much more open and transparent. That openness must apply at the parliamentary end. The working group on national Parliaments made many sensible suggestions on how that could be done, especially regarding the better communication of documents, but we should go further. Echoing the sentiments of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David), we have repeatedly urged the replacement of the civil service Coreper representative with a senior Minister fully answerable to national Parliaments. That is a sure way to allow our Parliament to hold the Government to account for what they agree to in Brussels.
Mr. Cash: Has my hon. Friend noticed that there are severe criticisms of the fact that the Convention and its working group on national Parliaments has not produced anything of sufficient practical value to make a difference to how national Parliaments influence matters? That is a serious and devastating indictment, and I use strong language because, unless success is achieved, our assumption that national Parliaments lie at the heart of the democracy of Europe will completely evaporate.
Mr. Spring: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Officially, the view is that national Parliaments can vet or return Commission proposals, but not veto them. We have heard about red and yellow cards, but the issue has not yet been spelled out categorically, as the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) said. I hope that we get more details.
The essential point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone makes is that unless real power is vested in national Parliaments to deal with the problem of legislation in the EU, the process of disconnection, about which we are all alarmed, will only grow worse. I agree with my hon. Friend on that. We need better communication between this place and the British delegation to the European Parliament so as to monitor the progress of legislation and to provide a check on gold plating. Furthermore, there must be more room for parliamentary scrutiny of European legislation before it goes to the Council.
368WH
The reforms that I suggest, which the Conservative party has often put forward, are positive and practical steps to make the EU more accountable and democratic. They would give the people of Europe a greater sense of ownership over institutions that too frequently seem to have the attitude that Brussels knows best. I urge the other parties and the Government to ensure that their representatives promote them vigorously at the Convention and the subsequent intergovernmental conference. The Committee's report rightly insists that the phrase "ever-closer union" should be removed from the treaties. Few things contribute more to the disquiet that British people feel about the European Union than the sense, justified by that phrase, that the EU is about sucking ever more powers to the centre. It is heartening that that fact is now widely recognised and reflected.
In contrast, the election of the President of the Commission or the establishment of a permanent President of the European Council would do nothing to bring the European Union close to its people. Both issues involve centralising measures and strengthening the exercise of power from the top down. The first would increase the politicisation of a body that is supposed to be impartial and the second, which is a pet project of the Government, although they borrowed it from the French, would establish yet another powerful central figure with only tenuous democratic legitimacy. That would raise great fears among our smaller European partners. One thing that we have learned recently, particularly in view of the EU's enlargement, is that we simply must protect the smaller EU nations. That is particularly true given the strengthened influence of the Franco-German relationship.
The EU has as its core aims the promotion of peace, stability and prosperity in Europe. Of course, it has had considerable success in that. However, in view of the challenges on the issue of democracy, we cannot afford the EU to assume state-like powers, including a written constitution—a first for this country—a vastly increased role in justice and home affairs as well as, to quote the Prime Minister, a "unified foreign policy". I do not believe that the British people would accept that.
Such a change would be extraordinarily important to the fundamental relationship between the member states and the EU, and would demand a great deal of popular consent if it were to have democratic legitimacy. After all, there have been referendums in Scotland and Wales, and even locally in London. I echo the hon. Member for Moray in saying that any European constitutional treaty should be tested by a referendum in the nation states that comprise the members of the EU. I hope that Members of all parties agree. It would be shameful if the Government denied us a referendum, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
5.14 pm
The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): This has been a good discussion, but I am not sure whether it has been a debate in the sense that we have heard the arguments for and against a concrete proposition. In fact, one saw all kinds of interconnectivities arising from discussions on the general feeling of disconnectedness among people in the EU.

369WH
The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), who spoke for the official Opposition, made common cause with the nationalist from Scotland, the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), in calling for a referendum and with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who is opposed to that charming and poetical call for an ever closer union. The hon. Member for West Suffolk also made common cause with Mr. D'Amato's French socialists, who want to see some mighty Minister sitting in Brussels covering the gamut of government policy and reporting back to his Parliament. That shows how the EU can produce some odd and interesting connections.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) put the key questions to us. His report is good. It was published last June, and I agree with Members that it is not right that we have had to wait until the end of January to debate it. I believe strongly that we should debate European matters and I regret that we do not have more debates on Europe in the Chamber.
In my first five weeks as Minister for Europe, I appeared some 13 times in the House of Commons and the Lords—full debates in the Chamber, Westminster Hall debates, Adjournment debates, a scrutiny Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Lords scrutiny Committee and Standing Committees galore. I felt that I was the most "scruted" Minister in the Government. I thought that, as Minister for Europe, I would be dashing around European capitals, explaining the great ideas and policies that Britain wants to see adopted. Instead, I find myself spending my time in the House of Commons. That is as it should be and it is certainly a pleasure, because I like the House.
It has been announced today that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, the Government representative on the Convention, will table practical proposals, including:
"A role for regions and localities in monitoring the application of subsidiarity; treaty amendment to acknowledge the role of regions and localities in relation to the subsidiarity principle; mandatory consultation of regions and localities by the Commission on policy matters affecting those regions and localities; reform of the Committee of the Regions to give it more influence."
Those are just some issues that the Government are advancing—that is the right way forward.
I had a very enjoyable meeting with representatives from England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and local government bodies some weeks ago to discuss how they could become more involved in Europe. Some wanted to focus on devolved Administrations and others wanted to focus on the English regions. Those representatives want to speak for their great cities and boroughs, and it is right that all of them should have a powerful say. Someone, however, has to bring it all together, and until such time as we cease to be a united kingdom, the House of Commons and the Government should make the decisions.
Mr. Cash: How will the Government deal with the doctrine of the occupied field and the question of shared, and other, competences? The occupied field is now so
370WH
overgrown with legislation that there is little room left for manoeuvre. In relation to subsidiarity, which corner of the field will be reserved for the national Parliaments?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the Minister can make sense of that.
Mr. MacShane: I was coming to that. One of the problems is that one uses the most absurd jargon for profoundly difficult issues that have always confronted all Governments throughout time. At what level does one take decisions? Subsidiarity works up to the point at which someone says, "This is so important that it must go further up the governmental chain."
On Monday, I attended a meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council, at which we discussed agriculture. I said to myself, "Wait a minute. Agriculture is not really foreign policy." However, two countries—Ireland and France—demanded, as of right, that the CAP be placed on the Council agenda. I am glad to say that both France and Ireland withdrew their objections to the Commission's speaking for Europe as a whole at the Doha round of World Trade Organisation negotiations, when it put its view—I expect that it is the view of this House—on the need to phase out agricultural subsidies and open up our markets to products from the third world. I was confused, but it was important for France and Ireland.
To save a bit of time, I shall answer the question of the hon. Member for Moray before he poses it. The issue of fisheries continues to be raised at the highest levels of the European Union. If we want subsidiarity, it has to stay with the Agriculture and Fisheries Council and not be put to either the Council of Ministers representing the Heads of Government or the General Affairs and External Relations Council, which represents Foreign Ministers.
Angus Robertson: May I ask—
Mr. MacShane: No, I shall move on because I have little time to deal with a lot of points. I quote from what the Foreign Secretary wrote in The Economist on 12 October:
"National parliaments could quickly review each EU proposal, judging whether action is being taken at the right level and in the right way. This would not amount to a veto. But if a majority of national parliaments judged that a proposal infringed subsidiarity, the commission would be expected to re-examine its approach."
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) has introduced the metaphor of red and yellow cards. They talk about football a lot in Birmingham, and such metaphors make sense. However, I think that I heard from the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) that that was a Conservative idea. There we have a co-joining of the Conservative party and the Foreign Secretary, although I ask myself why all these ideas have arrived since that party has been the Opposition. Why did it not advance them between 1979 and 1997?

371WH
Several hon. Members spoke about an elected President of the Commission. We are talking about proposals, and many proposals are made in the Convention. The Government have not yet taken a view on how the President should be chosen or selected. I give way to the right hon. Gentleman because he is a distinguished member of the Convention.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Will the Minister answer the point that in my hearing, and as recorded in the independent Brussels Bulletin, our Government representative on the Convention said that he agreed with the French and German Foreign Ministers' contribution word for word? That more than implies that he agrees with the Franco-German plan. It destroys public confidence if Ministers say one thing there that is then denied by other Ministers here.
Mr. MacShane: The difficulty is that we do not have Mr. Villepin's text or that of Mr. Fischer in front of us. Both their countries have put forward the notion of the European Parliament being involved in the election of the President of the Commission. It is an idea that is dear to many people in Germany. Until now, it has been strongly opposed by the French.
We are concerned about excessive politicisation. We want a strong Commission, and we must find out what the specific modalities are. Members are right to ask questions. We have not come to the end of the Convention and we have not had concrete proposals. We are not yet at the intergovernmental conference, where we shall get into treaty detail about how things should be done. There is also the proposal—a British idea—to have a standing chair of the Council of Ministers. My view is that that person will probably come from one of the smaller countries, perhaps a new member state. He or she will speak English and one or two other languages, and come from a tradition of building consensus and bringing people together. Therefore, that person will probably not be from the United Kingdom, given our fanatical devotion to the adversarial system of parliamentary duels.
The chair will ensure the Council's continuity. That is necessary because, as the report highlights, having 25 member states means that each one would hold the rotating presidency only six or seven times a century. It is possible that the EU will expand to include Bulgaria, Romania, some Balkan states—Croatia is keen to start accession talks—and Turkey, about which there is some discussion. That would reduce still further the sense that we have a rotating presidency.
In many of my discussions with Governments of so-called smaller countries, I have found an increasing understanding of and sympathy for the notion of a chairperson. Such a chairman or chairwoman—I do not know what they are called in the different languages—could represent the elected Governments of Europe, and we would want to put such a person under scrutiny in terms of what Europe does. Of course, the Government support the Committee's proposal for greater openness.
We discussed the election system for MEPs, but I do not want to get into that. There are differing views. I can never recall the name of the MEP who represented me before the last election. In Yorkshire, we have David Bowe, Linda MacAvan and Richard Corbett. They are
372WH
sound, wonderful people who should all be voted for in 2004. Some MEPs are excellent former Members of the House, such as John Bowis, Timothy Kirkhope and Edward McMillan-Scott, and there is Daniel Hannan, about whom we always read. They are real personalities, just as the Liberal Democrats Chris Huhne and Nick Clegg are, and the country knows about them. Under the old system, a massive protest vote led to the election, on a first-past-the-post basis, of a quite disproportionate number, and they went to Strasbourg. However, the numbers did not reflect the political spectrum in this House, so I am not sure that that was the right way.
The right hon. Member for Wells made his points in his forthright way and talked a lot about the German economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen) talked about the need for citizens, panels, and that is an interesting and useful idea. The strength of the Convention—it is not an intergovernmental conference—is that it allows us all to look at such ideas.
The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) recalled a conversation between Jean-Pierre Chevénement and Douglas Hurd, who was Foreign Secretary. The French socialist said, "As a result of Maastricht, you won't be able to participate again in a Gulf war." Well, French soldiers were in Kosovo and French planes were in Afghanistan. I am tempted to tell Members to watch this space as things develop over the next few weeks and Saddam Hussein continues to defy the United Nations and the international community.
On issues such as asylum and combating terrorism, we need international solutions. The environment does not respect national borders, and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) talked about the need for transnational legislation. He reminded us that the Prime Minister has raised the central role of national Parliaments, and we should be proud of the contribution that my right hon. Friend, Ministers and hon. Members are making.
I would like to see more link-ups between parliamentarians and their opposite numbers in the rest of Europe, including in the new member states. The House's new regulations make that more possible. I had the pleasure—with a spokesman from the Conservative party and one from the Liberal Democrats—of talking to our ambassadors to all of Europe, not just the EU. I insisted that I wanted our embassies to help all hon. Members who undertake visits to make contacts.
When talking about Europe, the hon. Member for Moray was elegant and visionary, and he showed his great experience of Austrian politics. When he returned to the subject of Scottish nationalism, however, he sounded like a nationalist. He asked about the concordat, and it is constantly under review, as it should be. It is a living thing, not something that comes and goes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) referred to non-participation of members of the Committee. I do not know whether this suggestion is feasible, given the budget allocation, but more of its members might be tempted to come along if the

373WH
Committee met in other European capitals. None the less, it does a good job, and I am not saying that just because the Chairman is here or because I want to be nice to members of the Committee, before which I hope
374WH
to appear in a few months. It does one of the best jobs of any Committee in the House, and, as I told the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), its work shapes our debates.
It being half-past Five o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

CABINET OFFICE

  Government Car Service
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office whether a Minister's spouse or partner may use a Government car for official engagements when not accompanied by the Minister. [94992]

  Mr. Alexander
  The rules on the use of an official car by a Minister's spouse or partner are set out in "Travel by Ministers".

  Press Releases
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many press releases have been issued by his Department in each(a) year and (b) quarter from 1995–96 to 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [92427]

  Mr. Alexander
  The number of press releases issued by the Cabinet Office since 1995 is as follows:

  1995—128

  1996—135

  1997—189

  1998—277

  1999—343

  2000—381

  2001—196

  2002—106

  The figures for 1999 and 2000 include press releases issued by the Year 2000 Media Co-ordination Unit, which was operating from the Cabinet Office. Most of these figures will also include press releases issued on behalf of the Privy Council Office, which have only been separately identifiable since 1 January 2002.

  Lists and copies of Cabinet Office press releases issued from 1999 are available at http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk.

  Providing quarterly figures since 1995–96 could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans he has to extend the opportunities for members of the public to receive appointments to public bodies, task forces and ad hoc advisory committees. [93388]

  Mr. Alexander
  As Cabinet Office Minister responsible for public appointments, work is currently under way in my Department on a new website, through which people will be able to get details of current and prospective public appointment vacancies across Departments. This new website will enable people to 946W
  search on the basis of topic, Government Department, location of the body etc. and will be linked through to the job specification and how to apply. The new website will be complemented by a biannual newsletter so that access to the internet is not a barrier. The website and newsletter will be available in the course of the year.

  Individual Departments are responsible for appointments to the public bodies they sponsor, and for setting up and organising the membership of specific task forces and ad hoc advisory committees.

  Publicity and Advertising
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how much(a) his Department and (b) each agency and non-departmental public body sponsored by his Department spent on (i) publicity and (ii) advertising in each year from 1995–96 to 2000–03 (estimated); and if he will make a statement. [92230]

  Mr. Alexander
  Details of my Department's spend on (i) publicity and (ii) advertising in each year from 1997–98 to 2001–02 can be found in the table. Information prior to 1997–98 is not held on the Department's accounting system and is therefore available only at disproportionate costs.

  £thousand

  Year

  Publicity

  Advertising

  1997–98

  472

  144

  1998–99

  1,634

  138

  1999–2000

  2,551

  262

  2000–01

  1,803

  464

  2001–02

  4,260

  2,708

  The estimated spend on publicity and advertising in 2002–03 is £2,106,000. This is based on actual expenditure incurred up to and including December and forecast expenditure for the remaining months of the financial year. It is not possible to separate out the publicity costs from the advertising costs without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Expenditure incurred by non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my Department are not held on our accounting system and is therefore available only at disproportionate cost.

  The increase in publicity expenditure between 1997–98 and 1999–00 is due to expenditure in connection with Year 2000 compliance awareness.

  The increase in publicity expenditure from 2000–01 to 2001–02 from £1,803 to £4,260,000 is due to expenditure of £2,670,000 incurred by the Office of the E-Envoy for the UK Online advertising campaign, offering help to people wanting to use the internet.

  The increase in advertising expenditure from 1998–99 to 2000–01 from £138,000 to £464,000 is due to expenditure on recruitment advertising for posts within the Department. These posts range from administration and junior management level through to the senior civil service. Also included is recruitment advertising expenditure for specialist placements within the Government Information and Development Centre.
  947W
  The advertising figure for 2001–02 includes £2,491,000 incurred in by the Office of the E-Envoy for the UK Online advertising campaign, offering help to people wanting to use the internet.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the rate of staff(a) absenteeism and (b) sickness was in his Department and each of its agencies and non-departmental public bodies in each year from 1990–91 to 2002–03; what the target set is for his Department; and if he will make a statement. [93508]

  Mr. Alexander
  Absenteeism is defined as unauthorised absence for which pay would be stopped. The Cabinet Office (and agencies) keep records of unpaid absence generally but they also include authorised absence. Separating the records could be achieved only at disproportionate costs.

  Sick absence figures for government departments are published annually in the report "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service". The most recent report for calendar year 2001 was announced by Ministerial Statement 19 December 2002. Copies are available in the Libraries of the House. Figures for 2002 will be announced later this year.

  Cabinet Office figures (including its agencies and non-departmental public bodies) are

  Days per staff year

  1993

  7.3

  1994

  6.3

  1995

  7.7

  1996

  6.4

  1997

  6.6

  1998

  7.3

  £

  Distributor

  NLDF balance at 16 March 2000

  Uncommitted funds

  NLDF balance at 31 March 2001

  Uncommitted fund

  NLDF balance 31 March 2002

  Uncommitted funds

  Arts Council of

  531,576

  England

  282,798,703

  -98,044,005

  256,789,149

  -16,113,171

  246,267,032

  (0.2 per cent.)

  12,798,154

  9,796,283

  7,774,074

  Film Council

  12,798,154

  (100 per cent.)

  41,761,184

  (23.5 per cent.)

  67,640,454

  (11.5 per cent.)

  Arts Council of

  9,773,570

  17,292,726

  15,443,320

  NI

  26,969,427

  (36.2 per cent.)

  30,372,890

  (56.9 per cent.)

  33,555,930

  (46.0 per cent.)

  Scottish Arts

  1,771,859

  10,747,608

  9,076,600

  Council

  52,442,351

  (3.38 per cent.)

  46,450,319

  (23.1 per cent.)

  44,642,966

  (20.3 per cent.)

  1,042,978

  Scottish Screen

  n/a

  n/a

  4,290,609

  (24.3 per cent.)

  3,637,995

  -1,306,175

  Arts Council of Wales

  24,055,796

  -7,977,347

  28,108,522

  -9,889,513

  32,542,530

  -5,296,685

  Community Fund

  601,000,000

  -26,000,000

  489,771,011

  -159,413,432

  401,424,347

  -148,132,113

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  903,000,000

  -27,200,000

  935,605,679

  -48,603,065

  933,667,077

  -125,269,349

  Millennium

  91,383,244

  157,384,792

  Commission

  591,711,691

  -148,888,309

  466,483,244

  (19.6 per cent.)

  386,384,792

  (40 per cent.)

  New

  Opportunities

  142,949,683

  11,541,590

  Fund

  463,999,683

  (30.8 per cent.)

  571,897,073

  (2.0 per cent.)

  826,417,473

  -55,387,421

  Sport England

  458,717,575

  -196,745,718

  451,912,589

  -186,232,411

  382,438,490

  -465,214,510

  Sports Council of

  778,787

  1,952,654

  5,178,473

  NI

  14,746,090

  (5.3 per cent.)

  16,748,325

  (11.67 per cent.)

  19,539,173

  (26.5 per cent.)

  9,919,219

  32,375,718

  19,599,086

  Sport Scotland

  75,106,991

  (13.2 per cent.)

  70,326,344

  (46.0 per cent.)

  72,899,224

  (26.9 per cent.)

  948W

  Days per staff year

  1999

  6.8

  2000

  4.6

  2001

  5.7

  Figures for 1990–92 are not available.

  Our target for reducing sick absence is no more than
  6.0 days per staff year by the end of 2003

  Previous targets, which were achieved, were no more than
  7.4 days per staff year in 1998
  6.4 days per staff year by 2001

  The Cabinet Office is committed to achieving its targets and has in place sick absence management procedures recommended by the 1998 report "Working Well Together—Managing Attendance in the Public Sector".

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Lottery
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what level of funds unallocated to good causes has been held by each of the Lottery fund distributors in each of the past five years; what percentage of their total balance this represented in each year; and if she will make a statement. [94138]

  Mr. Caborn
  All funds held in the National Lottery Distribution Fund (NLDF) are allocated to one of the Good Causes. Information regarding funds not yet committed to projects by each distributing body is only readily available in the form requested for the past three years. The figures in the following table show the position at the end of each of the last three completed financial years.
  949W

  £

  Distributor

  NLDF balance at 16 March 2000

  Uncommitted funds

  NLDF balance at 31 March 2001

  Uncommitted fund

  NLDF balance at 31 March 2002

  Uncommitted fund

  UK Sports

  Council

  4,165,842

  -19,832,014

  5,433,038

  -66,179,747

  8,011,662

  -42,902,309

  Sports Council of

  20,141,848

  13,989,556

  330,132

  Wales

  29,308,659

  (68.7 per cent.)

  35,912,106

  (39.0 per cent.)

  39,765,549

  (0.8 per cent.)

  198,133,120

  190,122,358

  215,318,053

  Total

  3,540,820,963

  (5.6 per cent.)

  3,451,862,081

  (5.5 per cent.)

  3,558,834,694

  (6.1 per cent.)

  Note:

  A negative figure in the table appears where a distributing body's commitments exceed its balance. The figure in the 'Total' row for uncommitted funds is the sum of the positive amounts only. Negative figures have been treated as zero in these calculations.

  Although some distributing bodies have funds in their NLDF balances which are not yet assigned to projects, the collective allocation of the 15 bodies is more than the total NLDF balance. The total level of commitment at September 2002, the latest date for which figures are available, stood at £3.99 billion, £470 million more than the balance of the NLDF at that time.

  The question of how best to deliver Lottery money most effectively was a part of the recent consultation exercise on Lottery Distribution Policy carried out by my Department. Proposals arising from this exercise will be published later this year.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the variation in expenditure relative to revenue received of the Lottery income distributing bodies; and if she will make a statement. [94139]

  Mr. Caborn
  There are significant differences between the 15 Lottery Distributing Bodies in terms of the nature of their activities and the type and timescale of the projects that they support.

  There are therefore good reasons why different bodies will draw down funds raised for them at different rates. DCMS is working with the distributors to encourage and facilitate greater commitment of Lottery funds and the faster expenditure of committed money. This must however be consistent with the principles of good financial management and accountability.

  At 30 September 2002, the distributors collectively had made commitments, with varying degrees of firmness, totalling 3.99 billion while the amount held in the National Lottery Distribution Fund (NLDF) at this time was 3.52 billion.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received concerning the accountability of the Lottery Fund distributing bodies and their application processes to(a) applicants, (b) the public and (c) her Department; what assessment she has made of them; and if she will make a statement. [94140]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has from time to time received representations about the accountability of the Lottery distributors and their application processes. The Accounting Officer of a Lottery distributor is accountable to both the Department's Permanent Secretary and to Parliament for the proper and prudent expenditure of funds, and distributors' activities are subject to external audit by the National Audit Office. As Lottery proceeds allocated to distributors are public money, the general
  950W
  principles of Government Accounting must be applied in the design and implementation of systems for the distribution of that money. Each Lottery distributing body must, under the terms of its financial directions, publish and make available guidance on how to apply for funds.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the rate of staff(a) absenteeism and (b) sickness was in her Department and each of its agencies and non-departmental public bodies in each year from 1990–91 to 2002–03; what the target set is for her Department; and if she will make a statement. [93509]

  Dr. Howells
  Cabinet Office publishes an annual report "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service". The most recently published figures for the calendar year 2001 were announced by Ministerial Statement on 19 December 2002, and copies placed in the Libraries of the House.

  For DCMS and the Royal Parks Agency the 2001 average working days sickness absence per staff year figures were:

  Certified sickness

  Self-certification

  Total

  Staff years

  DCMS

  3.8

  2.1

  5.9

  420

  Royal

  Parks

  Agency

  2.5

  11.0

  13.5

  229

  The 1999, 2000 and 2001 reports are available on the Cabinet Office website www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/ civilservice/publications/sickness/index.htm The sickness absence figures for 2002 will be announced in due course.

  DCMS and its Agency have no recorded cases of any unauthorised absenteeism.

  The targets set for DCMS and its Agency were:

  2001–02

  2002–03

  DCMS

  7 days

  6 days

  Royal Parks Agency

  10 days

  9 days

  951W
  DCMS, its Agency and each of its non-departmental public body (NDPB) are committed to managing sickness absence effectively, and in meeting the 2003 target for reduced sickness absence as set out in the Service Delivery Agreements (SDA) and NDPB Funding Agreements.

  DCMS does not hold central absenteeism and sickness records for NDPBs. To provide this information could be undertaken only at disproportionate cost.

  Tote
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans the Government have to sell the Tote(a) to a racing trust to allow it to compete commercially with all long-term profits invested in the sport and (b) to a profit-making company with interests in the gambling sector. [93794]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government's policy in this area is well established. The intention remains to sell the Tote to a consortium of racing interests and that is the basis we are working on. We would only consider other alternatives if that model proved to be unviable.

DEFENCE

  Helicopters
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many helicopters are in service with(a) 847 NAS, (b) 846 NAS and (c) 845 NAS, and what the serviceability rate is of the aircraft of each squadron. [93648]

  Mr. Ingram
  The numbers of aircraft and overall serviceability rate for 847 NAS, 846 NAS and 845 NAS are as follows:

  Aircraft

  Number

  847 Naval Air Squadron

  Lynx Attack Helicopter

  Six Aircraft; 100 per cent.

  Mark 7

  overall serviceability rate

  Gazelle Attack Helicopter

  Eight aircraft; 83 per cent.

  mark 1

  overall serviceability rate

  846 Naval Air Squadron

  Sea King Helicopter Mark 4

  10 aircraft; 60 per cent. overall

  serviceability rate

  845 Naval Air Squadron

  Sea King Helicopter Mark 4

  10 aircraft; 90 per cent. overall

  serviceability rate

  Serviceability is defined as the number of aircraft within the Actual Operating Fleet (AOF—the actual aircraft allocated to the Operating Commander to complete the mandated task) that are fit to fly at the time of reporting expressed as a percentage of the AOF. The figures provided are accurate as of 27 January 2003.

  Iraq
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on British involvement in military strikes on targets in the Iraqi no-fly zones since 952W
  11 September 2001; what the cost of this involvement has been to Britain; and what (a) military and (b) civilian casualties have resulted. [93217]

  Mr. Ingram
  Our records do not separately identify expenditure incurred in maintaining the no-fly zones, nor can they be broken down from specific dates. However, the table sets out the overall estimated additional expenditure incurred as a direct result of operations in the Gulf during financial year 2001–02 and 2002–03.

  £million

  2001–02

  221

  2002–03

  261

  Denotes figure calculated on a resource basis.

  I will write to the hon. Member with further details concerning expenditure in 2001–02 and 2002–03.

  We are not aware of any civilian casualties resulting from responses made in self-defence by coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones since 11 September 2001. It is not possible to confirm whether military casualties have occurred.

  Minimum Wage
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the impact of increasing the minimum wage(a) in line with average earnings, (b) to £4.17 per hour, (c) to £4.87 per hour, (d) to £5.00 per hour and (e) to £5.30 per hour, on the cost of salaries of departmental employees (i) in total and (ii) for each nation of the United Kingdom in the next financial year. [90609]

  Dr. Moonie
  Based on the net working hours of Ministry of Defence staff, increasing the minimum wage by any of the rates at(a) to (e) will have no impact on the cost of salaries for the MOD.

  Rifles
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many rifles have been supplied for use by(a) front-line troops and (b) support forces. [94103]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information to distinguish between the number of rifles of all types held by front line troops and support forces is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. Troops being deployed as part of Operation Telic are to be equipped with the modified SA80 rifle. To date, 50,000 modified SA80 rifles have been issued to United Kingdom Armed Forces personnel.

  SA-80 A2 Rifle
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many troops being deployed in the Gulf as part of Operation Telic are to be equipped with unmodified SA-80 A2 rifles. [93991]

  Mr. Ingram
  None. Arrangements are in place to ensure that all troops deployed on Operation Telic will be equipped with the modified SA-80 A2 rifle.

  Service Personnel (Cancelled Holidays)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much compensation has been paid to service personnel for cancelled holidays in the past six months; and how many service personnel have been compensated. [93652]

  Dr. Moonie
  During the period June—December 2002, approximately 46 Service personnel claimed a total of about £lIK in refunds under the Nugatory Holiday Expenditure scheme. This scheme reimburses Service personnel for otherwise irrecoverable expenses incurred through having to cancel or curtail holidays at short notice due to unplanned and unforeseen military commitments.

  Services' Protective Clothing
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) gas masks and (b) protective suits have been issued to service personnel. [93568]

  Mr. Ingram
  All service personnel receive a personal issue of one respirator, to be retained at all times, and protective suits are made available for operational requirements. Protective suits are bulky items so whilst one suit is given as a personal issue, the others would normally be held by Quartermasters and issued as required. Thereare sufficient stocks of gas masks and protective suits to meet our contingency plans.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  EU Food Production
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the change in the amount of food which will be produced in the EU after the expansion of the organisation. [94163]

  Margaret Beckett
  Accession to the EU will promote restructuring and improved productivity in the new member states. We welcome that. But it makes the need for reform of the common agricultural policy all the more critical in order to avoid stimulating artificial and uneconomic production in both the new and the existing member states.

  Sugar Production
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she next expects to meet British Sugar to discuss the development of new technology in sugar beet refining. [94173]

  Mr. Meacher
  Defra maintains regular contact with British Sugar at all levels. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, (the Lord Whitty), visited the Wissington Sugar Factory as recently as 17 January.

  Horticulture
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on Government policy towards horticulture. [94174]
  954W
  Alun Michael
  As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Environment, stated at Oral Questions on 19 December last, the Government welcome the contribution of horticulture to the UK economy. It is worth some £2 billion at the farm gate and supports substantial downstream activity in packhouses, processing and the garden industry. We will continue to work with the industry through the Sustainable Farming and Food Strategy published on 12 December, by funding research and development and through the England Rural Development Programme.

  Brown Trout
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what strategy has been in place during the past five years to combat the effects of water acidity upon stocks of native brown trout; and if she will make a statement. [94175]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government have lobbied for, and implements controls both on atmospheric emissions (to tackle the impacts at source) and on forestry practices (to help minimise the impacts). Alongside these controls we use catchment liming (if feasible and appropriate) as a method of remediation.

  Sewer Flooding
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she is taking to tackle sewer flooding. [94176]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has been working closely with the Office of Water Services to look at ways of tackling the serious problem of sewer flooding. The Government appreciate this can cause a great deal of stress and anxiety for those affected.

  Following a consultation on flooding from sewers, Ofwat announced that they will consider proposals from sewerage undertakers for additional schemes to alleviate the most serious problems in the period up to 2005.

  Fishing Fleet
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effect of the forthcoming expansion of the European Union on the economic viability of the United Kingdom's fishing fleet. [94178]

  Mr. Morley
  We do not expect the forthcoming accession of new member states to affect the economic viability of the UK fishing fleet.

  Flooding (Insurance)
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to use money allocated to flood defence for self-help schemes aimed at securing insurance at reasonable rates against flooding. [94179]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government currently have no plans to draw on flood defence budgets to award money to individual householders to install flood protection measures at their homes. Individuals are, however, encouraged to consider with their insurers whether
  955W
  investment in such devices will enable them to secure a reduction in their premiums. The development of standards for these devices has been supported by the Government.

  Hunting
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the International Fund for Animal Welfare regarding hunting; and if she will make a statement. [92998]

  Alun Michael
  The International Fund for Animal welfare is one of three organisations which comprise the organisation Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals (the other two being the League Against Cruel Sports and RSPCA). I met representatives of IFAW and the other campaigning organisations on a number of occasions, particularly in connection with the public hearings held in Portcullis House in September. I was meeting the Countryside Alliance and the Middle Way Group in parallel or at the same meetings. A representative of IFAW was present at the hearings examining the evidence put by expert witnesses.

  Advertising
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much her Department has spent on advertising since its creation; and if she will make a statement. [93677]

  Alun Michael
  Defra was formed as a Department in June 2001.

  The Department does not maintain records of its expenditure on advertising separately. Our expenditure for publicity, which includes advertising, publications, events, shows and direct information literature mailings, in financial year 2001–02 was £6.64 million. The allocation for publicity in 2002–03 is £4.1 million.

  Alternative Fuels
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research has been carried out on the replacement of diesel with fuels based on sunflower or rapeseed; and what plans the Government have to encourage the recycling of cooking oil as fuel for motor engines. [93476]

  Mr. Meacher
  This Department has funded a small number of projects evaluating the environmental and socio-economic impacts of using oilseed rape for biodiesel. DEFRA does not fund research and development work on liquid biofuels which is largely covered by the programmes of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Transport. The Chancellor introduced a duty cut of 20 pence per litre for biodiesel compared to Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel in 2002. This has stimulated the recycling of used vegetable oil to produce biodiesel, which is now available to the public as a blend with fossil diesel. Over 60 filling stations are currently retailing high quality biofuels made from recovered vegetable oil.

  Animal Welfare Research
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the priorities are of her Department's research into animal welfare issues; and if she will make a statement. [94171]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government are committed to promoting the welfare of all animals kept by man and to eliminate cruelty. The animal welfare research portfolio is wide-ranging and has projects covering important areas concerning welfare on farm, during transport, at markets and slaughter.

  Early Retirement
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much she expects her Department to spend on early retirement packages over the next five years; and how much her Department has spent on retirement packages since its creation. [93675]

  Alun Michael
  The expected costs of early retirement over the next five years are as follows:

  £million

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  2006–07

  2007–08

  Core

  DEFRA

  3

  7

  7

  —

  —

  Rural

  Payments

  Agency

  12.3

  16.5

  1.3

  1.2

  1

  Total

  15.3

  23.5

  8.3

  1.2

  1

  Historic information on the expenditure since DEFRA was created is not

  immediately available. I will write to the hon. Member with the information as soon as possible.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the current levels of farming incomes. [94177]

  Alun Michael
  As reported to the House this morning, revised estimates of farm income, output and productivity of agriculture during 2002 were published today. These confirm the increase in farm incomes forecast last November, and indicate a rise of 15 per cent. (14 in real terms) compared to 2001. Details have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Leadership Review
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the tests being applied to civil servants to evaluate them in the leadership review in her Department. [93674]

  Alun Michael
  The assessments made on participants in the Senior Managers' Development Programme will be based on DEFRA's Leadership Profile, which describes the skills and behaviour required to be an effective leader. We are awaiting detailed proposals from the consultants recently appointed to design and
  957W
  deliver the Programme, which will include how the assessments will be made. A copy of the Leadership Profile has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what cost savings she expects to make from the leadership review of her Department; and if she will make a statement. [93679]

  Alun Michael
  The purpose of the Senior Managers' Development Programme is to achieve a qualitative improvement in the performance of the participants and to strengthen the leadership capability of the Department. We plan to evaluate the impact of the Programme through the performance management systems within which DEFRA staff work, and through customer and staff surveys, rather than through the attainment of targeted cost savings.

  Network Rail
  Mrs Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the Chief Executive of Network Rail about the environmental and health hazards posed by the deposit of litter and human excrement on railway lines; and if she will make a statement. [88718]

  Mr. Meacher
  We have had no meetings with the Chief Executive of Network Rail regarding the environmental health hazards posed by litter and human excrement on railway lines.

  However, I understand that Network Rail continues to work closely with its maintenance contractors to ensure the lineside is clear from surplus litter, excrement and to prevent the future build-up of such material.

  The discharge onto a railway track from a sanitary convenience or sink forming part of a vehicle used for carrying passengers on a railway, where the discharge is less than 25 litres, is exempt from waste management licensing. These exemptions are specific activities and are defined in Schedule 3 of the Waste Management Licensing Regualtions 1994. Exemptions are prescribed so as to meet the terms set out in Article 11 of the Waste Framework Directive. Under the terms of Article 11, exemptions must ensure protection of the environment and human health.

  Since 1995 all newly-constructed trains are required to be fitted with retention tanks which obviate the need for such discharge. There is no finance available to make the alterations to pre-1995 carriages.

  Publicity and Advertising
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much(a) her Department and (b) each agency and non-departmental public body sponsored by her Department spent on (i) publicity and (ii) advertising in each year from 1995–96 to 2002–03 (estimated); and if she will make a statement. [92249]

  Alun Michael
  DEFRA as a Department did not exist prior to June 2001.
  958W
  The Department's centralised publicity expenditure is not recorded in the format requested. Our expenditure for publicity, which includes advertising, publications, events, shows and direct information literature mailings, in financial year 2001–02 was £6.64 million. The allocation for publicity in 2002–03 is £4.1 million.

  A breakdown of the expenditure for each agency and non-departmental body sponsored by the Department could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Sewage Treatment Works
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects conclusions to be reached following the consultation on the control of odour nuisance from sewage treatment works. [94161]

  Alun Michael
  I expect to be able to make a decision on the way forward in the coming months following consideration of the responses.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the rate of staff(a) absenteeism and (b) sickness was for her Department, its predecessors and each of its agencies and non-departmental public bodies in each year from 1990–91 to 2002–03; what the target set is for her Department; and if she will make a statement. [93497]

  Alun Michael
  The information requested in respect of absenteeism is not available, and may be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Records are not yet available for the number of days lost due to sickness absence in 2002, but these will be announced in due course. Sickness absence figures for previous calendar years are published in the Cabinet Office annual report "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service", copies of which are placed in House Libraries.

  Figures for the most recently available years for the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the former DETR are shown as an average per staff year. These are:

  Days

  MAFF

  DETR

  1990

  7.5

  9.4

  1991

  8.7

  10.3

  1992

  8.0

  10.2

  1993

  8.4

  10.7

  1994

  7.4

  9.4

  1995

  9.1

  11.2

  1996

  7.8

  10.4

  1997

  7.8

  9.7

  1998

  8.7

  8.7

  1999

  9.3

  8.7

  2000

  9

  9

  2001

  7.2

  10.5

  Figures for sickness absence in the Department's non-departmental public bodies are not held centrally, and may be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  959W
  The Department is committed to the effective management of sickness absence, and to meeting its Service Delivery Agreement of reducing sickness absence to 6.9 days for 2003.

  Staff Numbers
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the need to change the staffing complement in her Department working on(a) climate change, (b) energy efficiency, (c) renewable energy and (d) radioactive waste policy. [93901]

  Alun Michael
  Defra is currently discussing its budget for the coming financial year, and decisions on this annual process will be taken by the end of February. No decisions have yet been taken. Public spending is constrained and it is inevitable that choices and options are aired.

  We have set out our clear objectives, in "Working for the Essentials of Life". Like other Government Departments, we continually look for efficiency and effectiveness in delivery and to ensure that taxpayers' funding is allocated to support priority areas.

  Transport (Environmental Impacts)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with the Department for Transport with regard to environmental impacts from transport. [94180]

  Mr. Meacher
  Ministers and officials from the Department have frequent discussions with the Department for Transport about issues which might have environmental impacts. Recent discussions have covered consultation on airports capacity in the South East, the development of policy on aviation, the 10-year Transport Plan progress report, the Government's public service agreement targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions and to improve air quality, and the Multi Modal Studies.

  Water Framework Directive
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to ensure that the water framework directive is implemented to meet its deadlines. [94160]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government published detailed proposals last October in a second consultation paper.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH

  Human Trafficking
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government are taking to address human trafficking in(a) Europe and (b) throughout the world. [93145]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Organised immigration crime is on of the Government's highest priorities in the fight against organised and international crime. A multi-agency task force, known as 'Reflex', co-ordinates UK 960W
  action against organised immigration crime. Since April 2002, 17 organised crime groups have been disrupted and a further 69 investigations are on-going. In addition to contributing to the work of the UN, OSCE, IOM and others on this issue, the UK has contributed over £600,000 in the last three years to assist partners worldwide in tackling this criminal trade.

  Iraq
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries have indicated that they will make a military contribution to the UN to enforce Resolution 1441, should the UN require military force. [93597]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are not aware that the UN has made any such request. Nor would we expect it to in advance of a Security Council decision. No decision has been taken to launch military action against Iraq and military action is not inevitable. We hope that the Iraqi regime will choose to resolve this conflict peacefully, by complying fully with UN resolutions.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries have been invited to join a military coalition to deal with the problem of Iraq. [93614]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No decision has been taken to launch military action against Iraq and military action is not inevitable. We hope that the Iraqi regime will choose to resolve this conflict peacefully, by complying fully with UN resolutions.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence he has received of(a) drug trafficking and (b) white slavery in Kosovo; and if he will make a statement. [93618]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 29 January 2003]: Her Majesty's Government estimate that about 80 per cent. of the heroin received in the United Kingdom is trafficked through the Balkans from Afghanistan. The available information on trafficking routes suggests that a large majority of this heroin transits other Balkan and central European countries (for example, Bulgaria, over 2,000 kilograms seized in 2000) rather than Kosovo.

  We remain concerned at the trafficking of women and children through the region, including Kosovo. The United Kingdom's law enforcement agencies work closely with regional partners, including in Kosovo, to identify, disrupt and dismantle criminal networks targeting the UK. In 2002, the Trafficking and Prostitution Investigation Unit of the UNMIK Police conducted 353 raids on premises where people trafficking was suspected of taking place. 61 premises were closed down, 234 arrests were made and 92 persons were charged with trafficking offences. 89 victims were repatriated and 1,727 people were added to a database used to help target efforts to tackle trafficking from major source countries.
  961W
  The United Kingdom has supported a number of counter-narcotics and anti-organised crime projects in the Balkans and central Europe (over £700,000 this financial year).

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his estimate is of the number of Serbs who have fled Kosovo since KFOR forces entered the province; and what his estimate is of the numbers who have returned. [93619]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 29 January 2003]: According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), 159,000 Serbs have left Kosovo and, according to the United Nations Office for Returns and Communities, nearly 3,500 Serbs have chosen to return to the province since KFOR forces entered Kosovo.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Orthodox churches in Kosovo have been destroyed since KFOR forces have been present in the Serbian province; and what steps are being taken to bring the perpetrators to justice. [93620]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 29 January 2003]: Figures for the number of churches destroyed in Kosovo vary. Following extensive inquiries, UNMIK, KFOR, OSCE and UNHCR believe that 110 churches have been destroyed since KFOR entered Kosovo in June 1999.

  I told Kosovo Albanian leaders during my visits to the province that the destruction of churches and all religious sites were acts of barbarism which bring shame and dishonour to all concerned. KFOR and UNMIK continue to take action against extremists. In support of combating extremism, UNMIK also conduct programmes promoting multi-ethnicity.

  Pakistan
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the risk to the security of the UK posed by terrorist organisations based in Pakistan. [93434]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I have been asked to reply.

  Advice on any terrorist threat to the UK is the responsibility of the Security Service. Strategic assessments about terrorist threats to the UK are provided to the Government by the Joint Intelligence Committee. All threats are a matter that the Government continue to take seriously and are kept under constant review.

  Roma People
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Governments of(a) the Czech Republic, (b) Hungary, (c) Romania and (d) Slovakia, on the living standards of their Roma citizens. [93467]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 28 January 2003]My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the Foreign Ministers of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Romania in 2002. He raised the question of Roma minorities with all three. He also plans to meet the 962W
  Slovak Foreign Minister in February 2003. The UK's programmes of pre-accession support for candidate countries puts a high priority on improving the quality of life of Roma minorities.

  All four states have been found to meet the Copenhagen criteria, which require a state to uphold the basic human rights of all its citizens.

  Saudi Arabia
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures are being taken to secure the release of the detainees: Sandy Mitchell, Les Walker, James Lee and James Cottel, arrested in Saudi Arabia. [93703]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary, and ministerial colleagues have raised the cases of the British men detained in Saudi Arabia at the highest levels with the Saudi authorities. We remain deeply concerned about these cases. The men's welfare is a key concern. We continue to work to resolve the cases. We are in close contact with the Saudi authorities and the men's lawyers. We also continue to make consular visits to the men.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 20 January 2003,Official Report, columns 14–15W, on Afghanistan, what consideration has been given to the use of security forces to assist in the dispersal of humanitarian aid; and what steps are being taken to address the security situation in Zabul province. [93909]

  Clare Short
  Since my last answer of 20 January 2003, the UN in Kabul have spoken to the Governor of Zabul province and have agreed improvements in security for those aid agencies operating in Zabul. Most of the hijacked cars, together with the equipment on board, have also been recovered.

  It is not the primary role of the security forces in Afghanistan to assist with the distribution of humanitarian aid, although they have been involved in a limited number of successful small projects in and around Kabul. The main purpose of security forces is to improve the security conditions to allow humanitarian and development organisations to provide assistance themselves.

  New joint civil-military provincial reconstruction teams are being deployed over the next few months to help provide greater security outside Kabul.

  Africa
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the effectiveness of(a) the New Partnership for African Development and (b) the Africa Union in promoting democracy in Zimbabwe. [93858]
  963W
  Clare Short
  The New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) commits African leaders to the promotion of good governance, human rights and democracy. It is a new process and obviously cannot overnight correct all governance problems in Africa such as those in Zimbabwe. The African Union has to reflect the views of all African states. It has traditionally been reluctant to comment on the internal affairs of a member state, although there are encouraging indications that this attitude is changing. The UK government continues to work with African governments and regional initiatives and institutions to promote good governance, human rights and democracy. We should not of course punish all of Africa for the situation in Zimbabwe.

  Angola
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress is being made with collection of data on the state of health in Angola. [93801]

  Clare Short
  The need for more effective information management systems in the health and education systems in Angola, including improved collection and analysis of data, has been identified as a key issue for future progress in the 2002 UN Common Country Assessment. This need is likely to be highlighted in the Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, on which the Government are presently working, which will provide the framework for future donor support to Angola.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of people in Angola are suffering from(a) HIV/Aids and (b) malaria; and if she will make a statement. [93802]

  Clare Short
  According to the UNAIDS office in Angola, very few accurate statistics are available on HIV/AIDS outside the capital Luanda, where HIV infection rose sharply from 3.4 per cent. in 1999 to 8.6 per cent. in 2001. Overall, it is estimated that over 520,000 adults in Angola (out of an adult population of just over six million) were living with HIV in 2001. With regard to malaria, the UN DP Human Development Report 2002 states that there were 8,796 cases per 100,000 in 2000.

  The Government of Angola is currently drafting an Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (I-PRSP) which includes an assessment of the country's health needs. This will state how donors can support work on HIV/AIDS and malaria. My Department will consider the implications for our development support to Angola, once the I-PRSP strategy becomes available.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking in the development of local government in Angola; and if she will make a statement. [93803]

  Clare Short
  Local government in Angola is relatively weak due to a lack of consistent funding from the centre and because it is appointed rather than elected. This has created a distance between local government and Angola's citizens.
  964W
  My Department has been providing some £7.5 million of support to the Luanda Urban Poverty Programme (LUPP). One of the main objectives of the programme is to build local government capacity so that it can provide improved services to the communities for which it is responsible. Using participatory methods, the programme is assisting local government to work in partnership with community associations to achieve tangible outcomes such as clean water, sanitation and waste disposal. This process will contribute to strengthening local democracy as government and communities learn to work together. We are presently considering a second phase of support to LUPP.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of children in Angola are being educated to primary school standard; and if she will make a statement. [93804]

  Clare Short
  UNICEF has estimated that 51.2 per cent. of Angolan children attended primary school in 2001. However, the 2003 UN Inter-Agency Consolidated Appeal (CAP) estimates that at least 80 per cent. of all Angolan children do not have access to adequate education and more than one million children are outside the formal school system. In newly accessible areas, seven out of ten children do not attend school.

  Primary education is only one of several key tasks that confront the Government of Angola. The Ministry of Education recognises the need to address this situation and has set itself a target of achieving two thirds enrolment by 2005.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps are being taken to retrain former military personnel in Angola. [93805]

  Clare Short
  The proposed Angolan demobilisation and reintegration programme is currently being negotiated between the Government of Angola and the World bank. The programme will include sub-projects to provide ex-combatants with a wide range of educational opportunities from basic literacy to apprenticeships and professional qualifications. Agricultural extension services and support for the self-employed and micro enterprise are also envisaged.

  Over 5,000 ex-UNITA fighters are being integrated into the Angolan armed forces, as part of the disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration process in Angola. They are receiving up to three months training depending on their rank and existing skills.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action is being taken to ensure that revenue raised from the exploitation of natural resources in Angola is used for the development of the country. [93806]

  Clare Short
  Since the end of the civil war, we and other donors have been impressing on the Government of Angola the need for transparency over the collection and allocation of resources, and the need to increase levels of spending in the social sectors and for national reconstruction. Last year, the United Nations, in partnership with the Angolan Government, carried out an assessment of public financing of the social sectors in Angola. The objective of the study was to make practical recommendations regarding the distribution
  965W
  of resources and budget management mechanisms. More recently, my Department has provided consultancy support toward the preparation of Angola's Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (IPRSP), specifically in clarifying details of the Government budget including a breakdown of revenues.

  Child Soldiers
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what(a) European, (b) British and (c) UN regulations prohibit the use of child soldiers in military forces. [93492]

  Clare Short
  International humanitarian law, as embodied in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols, prohibits the recruitment or use of children under 15 in armed conflict and provides for the protection of children, particularly those separated from their families. The Statute of the International Criminal Court, to which the UK is a state party and which has been incorporated into national law, makes the recruitment and/or use of children under 15 a war crime.

  The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, now enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998, forbids the use of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment which may include the forcing of children to take part in hostilities.

  The UK is a Party to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which makes particular provision for the protection of all children under 18 years. It prescribes that the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration, severely restricts the circumstances in which children may be removed from their parents and protects children against arbitrary interference with their privacy and liberty. This Convention, along with International Labour Organisation Convention 182 (which the UK has ratified), prohibits the use of children in the worst forms of labour; and Convention 182 specifically prohibits the forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict.

  The UK expects to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict later this year. This provides that states parties must take all feasible measures to ensure that members of their armed forces who have not attained the age of 18 years do not take a direct part in hostilities, and that children under 18 years are not compulsorily recruited into their armed forces. Non-state actors, such as insurgent groups, are prohibited from ever recruiting or using in hostilities children under 18. We take the Protocol seriously. That is why before we ratify, we need to be clear that the detailed procedures and administrative guidelines for the armed forces are finalised. These will give concrete form to our commitment. MOD officials, in consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, are in the final stages of drafting an Explanatory Memorandum which will explain the steps being taken to meet that commitment. As part of the ratification
  966W
  process, we will lay the Explanatory Memorandum (EM) before Parliament. This does not require any changes to UK legislation.

  The UK has many laws that prohibit the activities usually associated with the use of child soldiers, such as assault, forcing a child to perform illegal acts, deprivation of their liberty and making children take harmful drugs and alcohol.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what(a) discussions she has held and (b) action she has taken jointly with her counterparts in other countries to combat (i) the use of children as soldiers in conflicts and (ii) their recruitment into the armed forces of (A) governments, (B) paramilitary groups, (C) civil militia and (D) non-state armed groups. [93493]

  Clare Short
  The most effective way of tackling the use of child soldiers is to prevent, reduce and resolve armed conflicts. This is part of the wider issue of the impact of armed conflict on children generally, their families and communities. In addressing this, my Department is working with other UK Government Departments and other governments through appropriate regional mechanisms, the non-governmental community and the multilateral system to this end. UNICEF, with the support of my Department and other governments, works to effect the disarmament, demobilisation and rehabilitation of child soldiers, particularly back into the community and prevent their re-recruitment. Through a multi-year capacity building programme supported by my Department, UNICEF are collecting data on the situation of children affected by armed conflict globally, to better inform policy, guidance and programming on the wide range of issues involved.

  My Department has also been supporting the work of the United Nations Secretary-General's Special Representative on Children and Armed Conflict, whose work (primarily of advocacy and raising awareness of the issues at all levels) features prominently in the Secretary-General's report of 26 November 2002 to the Security Council on this issue.

  Through its representation on the Security Council, the Government have been closely involved in the passing of eight resolutions since August 1999 addressing the issue of child soldiers and other children affected by armed conflict, and are currently involved in negotiations for a further resolution to strengthen the ability of the international community to take action to prevent the recruitment and use of children in armed conflicts. Along with the vast majority of other states, the Government have also ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and is taking steps to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention preventing the use of children in armed conflict.

  Europe Development Council
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the abolition of the Europe Development Council. [94563]

  Clare Short
  I was not in favour of the abolition of the Development Council, which had been useful in promoting reforms of EC development co-operation, in
  967W
  adopting a more coherent development policy framework and in pressing the case for an increase in the poverty focus of EC aid. The June 2002 Seville European Council decided to streamline the functioning of the Council in the run-up to enlargement and reduced Council groupings from 16 to 9 and thus abolished the development Council. There are opportunities with the new General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) for more discussions on development at monthly meetings.

  I have been working to maintain a strategic approach to development issues as established by the Development Council. In particular, I have been pushing for at least two strategic GAERC meetings per year focusing on development—one forward looking and one to assess progress. I will continue to press hard to ensure development is given due weight in the new configuration and will seek to ensure appropriate UK ministerial attendance to debate development issues.

  Grants
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the grants funded by her Department for which individual members of the public and organisations may apply; and if she will make a statement as to(a) the total of such funding in the last financial year, (b) the total number of awards and (c) their administrative costs. [82185]

  Clare Short
  The numbers and values of grants made in FY 2001–02 by the various DFID funds open to members of the public and organisations in UK are listed as follows. Information on the administrative costs of these funds is not held centrally and could not be gathered without incurring disproportionate cost. The number and value of grants refers to new grants made in the period.

  Fund

  Number of grants

  Value(£ million)

  Civil Society Challenge

  Fund

  62

  30.2

  Renewable Natural

  Resources Knowledge Strategy

  43

  22.6

  Engineering Knowledge and Research Programme

  54

  13.4

  Business Linkages Challenge Fund

  9

  13.3

  Social Science Research

  42

  8.1

  Financial Deepening Challenge Fund

  7

  6.0

  Development Awareness Fund

  38

  5.5

  Education Research Programme

  46

  1.9

  Asia Regional Poverty Fund

  22

  1.9

  Tourism Challenge Fund

  6

  1.3

  Enterprise Development Innovation Fund

  6

  1.0

  Total

  335

  105.2

  In addition, the UK Small Grants Scheme allows UK Heads of Mission to provide funding for small-scale development projects in the countries where they
  968W
  work—up to a value of £100,000 per year. As responsibility for their administration is delegated to Heads of Mission, data on the number and value of new grants made in FY 2001–02 are not held centrally and could not be collected without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Total expenditure through UK non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in FY 2001–02 was £190.5 million. This included Partnership Programme Agreements with 11 NGOs, which provided funding in support of jointly agreed strategic programmes with NGOs with proven experience and impact, and contracts with NGOs to carry out specific development projects and humanitarian interventions on DFID's behalf.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures her Department is taking to ensure child participation in the development of policies and programmes on HIV/AIDS is in line with the recent UNICEF report; and if she will make a statement. [93599]

  Clare Short
  Over half of all new HIV/AIDS infections are in young people (15–24 age group). We believe, therefore, that HIV prevention programmes must give a high priority to informing young people about the risk of HIV/AIDS, and that young people are encouraged to participate in the development of programmes to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. We support young people's HIV/AIDS prevention through our bilateral programmes and in partnership with UNICEF.

  In South Africa, for example, young people have been actively engaged in the review and monitoring of our adolescent sexual health programmes. In Mozambique we have committed £2.6 million over five years to support UNICEF's HIV/AIDS programme for young people. In China, we are currently developing an HIV/ AIDS prevention and care programme that includes young people in a range of design activities. In Kenya, we have supported various focus group discussions with young people and trained peer HIV/AIDS educators.

  Maternal Mortality
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the main causes of maternal mortality in developing countries. [93862]

  Clare Short
  99 per cent. of the 510,000 maternal deaths and most of the widespread disability caused by complications in childbirth worldwide are in developing countries. Up to 80 per cent. of these deaths result from five relatively common obstetric complications: haemorrhage, infection, complications of abortion, eclampsia and obstructed labour. Almost all of these deaths could be avoided by timely, effective interventions by skilled attendants at delivery, backed up by a functioning referral system and access to emergency obstetric care. This requires effective care and functioning health systems. To this end my Department have committed over £1 billion since 1997
  969W
  to health systems strengthening. We are also working to improve access to quality reproductive and sexual health services in order to avoid unwanted pregnancies.

  Mozambique
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 22 January 2003,Official Report, column 313W, on Mozambique, what the response has been to the Mozambiquan Government's request for help from UN agencies; and what the nature has been of her Department's support. [93644]

  Clare Short
  The World Food Programme (WFP) has responded to the Government's request for assistance by implementing a food distribution programme focusing on six provinces and 38 districts considered worst affected by the drought. Between July and December WFP distributed some 14,301 metric tonnes of food aid. As the operation gradually expanded over the six-month period, WFP's beneficiary caseload gradually increased. In December food rations were distributed to 247,130 people.

  The programme is carried out through implementing partners representing a mix of international and national non-governmental organisations, and the Mozambique Red Cross. In 11 areas of operation the programme is implemented directly through local authorities. Implementing partners help to identify vulnerable households eligible to receive food aid, and organise physical distribution of food at the community level. The main focus of the programme to date has been on implementing food-for-work schemes. Given that Mozambique is now entering the hungry period, a programme shift, with greater emphasis on meeting the needs of vulnerable people who cannot work is planned.

  UNICEF has extended its regular country programme to include the implementation of drought response projects in areas that are considered to be particularly vulnerable. With support from DFID (£973, 000), UNICEF is implementing a blanket supplementary feeding programme for children aged 6–59 months and for pregnant and lactating mothers. The project will focus on the six provinces considered most vulnerable and aims to reach 141,000 children and 71,000 women. The programme also includes follow-up treatment and care for severely malnourished children through support to the existing therapeutic feeding centre network. UNICEF will implement activities through a network of partners comprising local and international NGOs and the Mozambique Red Cross.

  In addition, UNICEF has also responded to the Government's request for assistance by supporting the creation of thirty sentinel sites for nutritional surveillance in order to measure acute malnutrition trends. This programme focuses on three drought-affected provinces. Planning work is under way to expand the programme and increase geographical coverage of the sites. UNICEF has also been working on strengthening epidemiological preparedness and providing additional support to measles vaccination campaigns. Furthermore, UNICEF has increased its focus on the provision of clean water at health centres in the districts worst affected by the drought. UNICEF is also pre-positioning school kits as an incentive for
  970W
  children to attend school, given indications that both the drought and the HIV/AIDS pandemic is resulting in increased drop-out rates.

  DFID has provided £1 million for a cash for work programme, providing an income source in the short term and increasing access to markets in the longer term. DFID is providing £973,000 in support of UNICEF's supplementary feeding programme. DFID is looking at providing up to £500,000 to support agricultural input fairs given poor crop forecasts in many areas of southern Mozambique.

  Mugabe
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the French Government regarding the renewal of the EU travel ban on(a) Robert Mugabe and (b) other Zimbabwean Government officials. [93971]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 29 January 2003]: I have not discussed the renewal of the EU travel ban with the French Government. The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has had regular discussions with his French and other counterparts on this issue, including at the General Affairs and External Relations Council in Brussels on 27 January. I have discussed the urgent humanitarian needs in Zimbabwe with the French and other Development Ministers, and reiterated the importance for the Zimbabwean people, especially the poor, of reversing the disastrous policies of the present Zimbabwean government.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what discussions she has had with the Foreign Office regarding the renewal of the EU travel ban on(a) Robert Mugabe and (b) other Zimbabwean Government officials; [93972]

  (2) what discussions she has had with the Foreign Office regarding the attendance of President Mugabe at a Franco-African Summit in February. [93970]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 29 January 2003]: The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and I have not discussed the renewal of the EU travel ban on Robert Mugabe and other Zimbabwean Government officials nor the Franco-African Summit. We have regular and extensive discussions on the urgent humanitarian needs in Zimbabwe and the importance for the Zimbabwean people, especially the poor, of reversing the disastrous policies of the present Zimbabwean government.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the rate of staff(a) absenteeism and (b) sickness was in her Department and each of its agencies and non-departmental public bodies in each year from 1990–91 to 2002–03; what the target set is for her Department; and if she will make a statement. [93510]

  Clare Short
  We are unable to provide details of rates of staff absenteeism as unauthorised absence is recorded as unpaid leave along with properly authorised absence (such as additional maternity leave or career breaks) and cannot be disaggregated.
  971W
  My Department will announce the rates of sick absence recorded in 2002 in due course. The rates of sick absence recorded in DFID per calendar year from 1997 to 2001 are as follows:

  Year

  Number of absences

  Average number of days per staff year

  1997

  9,250

  8.1

  1998

  8,643

  7.3

  1999

  9,263

  7.3

  2000

  8,426

  6.2

  2001

  11,545

  8.3

  Staff numbers on which these are based have risen from 1,142 in 1997 to 1,391 in 2001.

  Figures on rates of sick absence before 1997 are not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  DFID is working towards reducing its sickness absence rate.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department has taken in response to the UN Secretary General's report to the Security Council on the UN mission in Sierra Leone, with particular reference to the transfer of responsibilities to the Government of Sierra Leone. [93407]

  Clare Short
  We are playing a key role in assisting the Government of Sierra Leone to prepare for the withdrawal of UNAMSIL. Through joint action between my Department, the Ministry of Defence and the FCO, and using funds from the Africa Conflict Prevention Pool, the UK is leading the international military assistance training team; we are providing technical assistance for capacity-building in the Ministry of Defence, including the working relationship between civilian and military staff; we have funded the renovation and equipping of a new headquarters for the Ministry of Defence; and we are providing technical assistance to help the Office of National Security to operate effective, non-political, intelligence services. We are also providing a major programme to support the reform and strengthening of the Sierra Leone police.

  The Secretary-General has emphasised that the timing and phasing of UNAMSIL drawdown will be carried out with close regard to the rate of development of the capacity of the Sierra Leone security sector. We are closely in touch with the UN on this issue.

  Uganda
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of reports by UNICEF of the number of children unaccounted for in Northern Uganda. [83980]

  Clare Short
  The LRA have for many years made a practice of making children a main target of their war. Until security improves in northern Uganda, however, UNICEF will not be able to collect precise data on the number of unaccounted children. Renewed LRA 972W
  activity last year led to a dramatic increase, and it is estimated that 4,500 children were abducted in 2002 (compared to 100 in 2001). It is unclear how many of these children have returned home and how many are still being held by the LRA inside Uganda or Sudan. Unfortunately, many of these children will have been killed. DFID is supporting Save the Children's efforts to rehabilitate and reintegrate those fortunate enough to escape, and will continue to do so as long as it is required.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the humanitarian situation in Northern Uganda; and if she will make a statement. [93848]

  Clare Short
  The circumstances faced by people in Northern Uganda are of grave concern. Humanitarian consequences of the continuing conflict are high, with an estimated 600,000 internally displaced persons and declining levels of food security due to disruption of harvesting and planting seasons. DFID has made available £1.6 million for food supplies to be distributed by the World Food Programme. The total support from the UK government for humanitarian needs in northern Uganda is £2.5 million this financial year.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what discussions she had with President Museveni on her recent trip to Uganda concerning Northern Uganda; [93981]

  (2) if she will make a statement on (a) the nature of her recent trip to Uganda, (b) who she met; and what discussions she had. [93982]

  Clare Short
  I met with President Museveni briefly on transit through Uganda. We discussed his request for increased military spending focused on the need to defeat the Lords Resistance Army. I fully support the need to end the suffering inflicted by the Lords Resistance Army, however our assessment is that this objective does not justify all the additional defence expenditure. In response to the Government of Uganda's breaching of the agreed process for government resource allocations and the consequent increase of defence spending, the UK is to withhold £5 million of its general budget support this financial year.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with President Museveni concerning possible peace talks with the Lord's Resistance Army. [93983]

  Clare Short
  I am in close contact with President Museveni on the possible responses to the conflict in northern Uganda. This was one of the subjects of our meeting last week at Entebbe airport. The levels of violence perpetrated by the Lord's Resistance Army are terrible, and I support the efforts of the Ugandan government to protect the lives and property of its citizens. The complex nature of the conflict means that dialogue is crucial if a sustainable end to the suffering faced by the Acholi people is to be realised. I have been encouraged by the passing of the Amnesty Act, the appointment of the Government Peace team and the work of the Acholi religious leaders as offering real potential for dialogue.

  Zimbabwe
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department has had with the Government of South Africa regarding food imports to Zimbabwe. [93859]

  Clare Short
  My Department has regular discussions with South African officials on the humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe. We have also been monitoring the progress of negotiations between the World Food Programme (WFP) and the Government of South Africa. WFP is at an advanced stage of negotiation with the Government of South Africa regarding a gift of £100,000 metric tons of maize from South Africa to countries in the region suffering food shortages. The amount for distribution to individual countries is still to be determined, but WFP would wish to distribute over 50 per cent. of the total to Zimbabwe.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she is having with the Government of South Africa regarding the political situation in Zimbabwe. [93861]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave her on 22 January 2003,Official Report, column 317W).

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her latest assessment is of the number of people facing food shortages in Zimbabwe. [93973]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 29 January 2003]: The SADC Vulnerability Assessment Committee report of December 2002 estimated that the total number of people in need of food assistance in Zimbabwe had risen to 7.2 million. Of these, the World Food Programme (WFP) aims to reach 5.8 million. Other humanitarian assistance is provided through the Government of Zimbabwe, and bilateral support direct to nongovernmental organisations in addition to donor help through the WFP. The UK bilateral programme alone is reaching 1.5 million people; 1 million of these are children receiving supplementary feeling in schools, with the remainder comprising particularly vulnerable adults (for example people in the district of Binga), pregnant women, and the elderly.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Departmental Expenditure (Newsprint)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor General what the total expenditure of her Department was on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in 2002. [90526]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 16 January 2003]: The Departments for which I hold ministerial responsibility account for expenditure on these items differently. In particular, accounting for periodicals in Treasury Solicitor's Department include subscriptions to legal journals and updates on loose-leaf specialist legal publications.

  The expenditure of my own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, for the financial year 2001–02 was £3,335.30.
  974W
  The total expenditure for the Crown Prosecution Service on newspapers, magazines and periodicals from January to December 2002 was £148,582.

  The expenditure by the Serious Fraud Office for the financial year 2001–02 was £10,143.85.

  The expenditure by the Treasury Solicitor's Department for the period April to December 2002 was £2,200 on newspapers and magazines and £112,175 on subscriptions—making a total of £114,375.

  HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate for the same period was £3,350. This was on periodicals and professional journals; there was no expenditure on newspapers.

  Eurobank
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Solicitor-General what costs have been incurred by her Department during and arising from the collapse of the Eurobank case; and if she will make a statement. [94407]

  The Solicitor-General
  None. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  R v. McKay
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Solicitor-General when she will provide a substantive reply to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight concerning R v. McKay. [93705]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney General provided a substantive reply to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight concerning Rv. McKay, on 29 January 2003.

  Theft/Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what her estimate is of the cost of theft and fraud to(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in 2002. [89863]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]: The figures for the Departments for which I hold ministerial responsibility account are as follows:

  The Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers—nil;

  HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate—£516;

  Treasury Solicitor's Department—nil;

  Crown Prosecution Service—£3,217; and

  Serious Fraud Office—£85.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Agency Workers Directive
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with her European counterparts concerning the agency workers directive; and if she will make a statement on her Department's policy on the proposed legislation in its present form. [93395]
  975W
  Alan Johnson
  The proposed directive was recently discussed in the European Union Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council on 3 December 2002, where I represented the United Kingdom. The Department of Trade and Industry has published an explanatory memorandum about the European Commission's revised proposal which sets out the Government's policy on the proposed directive. I have placed a copy of this in the Libraries of the House.

  Alenia Marconi Systems
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what export control licence applications were received from Alenia Marconi Systems in the last five years; and what was the outcome of each of these applications. [93459]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 27 January 2003]: Details of all relevant export licences issued and refused since 2 May 1997 are published by destination in the Government's Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls, copies of which are placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Call Centre Scripts
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), of 16 January,Official Report, column 806, if she will list the call centre scripts that she has gone through. [93857]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Minister of State for E-Commerce and Competitiveness and I have seen the original DWP and Inland Revenue call centre scripts.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received about the practice of retentions in the construction industry; and if she will make a statement. [94221]

  Mr. Wilson
  The hon. Member may be aware that the Trade and Industry Select Committee has recently published the findings of its inquiry into the use of retentions in the construction industry.

  I welcome these and I am pleased that the committee has broadly supported the Government's approach to improving UK construction performance through "Rethinking Construction" and "Accelerating Change". Issues of fair payment and quality, defect-free work are fundamental to the continued success of the UK construction industry.

  The Department of Trade and Industry intends to respond to the Select Committee's recommendations on behalf of the Government by Tuesday 4 February. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the Select Committee's recommendations before the Committee has had the opportunity to consider my response.

  Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals there are to extend antidiscrimination law to cover discrimination in employment and training on grounds of sexual orientation. [93485]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government are committed to introduce new legislation (implementing the Article 13 Employment Directive) to outlaw unfair discrimination at work and in training on grounds of sexual orientation by December 2003.

  Our plans were published on 23 October 2002 in the consultation document 'Equality and Diversity: The Way Ahead'. Consultation ended on 24 January. We will consider responses before laying regulations before Parliament later in the year.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals she has under the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 to allow unmarried partners to leave their pensions to their surviving partner of either sex when they die. [93484]

  Alan Johnson
  We consulted on proposals to implement the employment directive in the document 'Equality and Diversity: The Way Ahead'. In our view, rules which restrict benefits to opposite sex partners—whether or not they are married to the pension holder—are likely to constitute unlawful discrimination.

  Because the directive is 'without prejudice to national laws on marital status and the benefits dependent thereon' however, we proposed that benefits aimed exclusively at married couples would continue to be allowable.

  The consultation ended on 24 January. We will consider responses before laying the regulations before Parliament later in the year.

  Job Sharing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the extent of job sharing in her Department. [90874]

  Ms Hewitt
  Currently in DTI, there are around 28 job shares, including three job shares at senior civil service level; two people work school term times only and the staff survey shows that 78 per cent. of staff state that their managers allow working patterns to help them balance work and home life.

  The Department launched a new flexible working policy including guidance for managers and staff in April 2002, to ensure that new ways of working are available to all individuals and the benefits to stakeholders, customers, managers and staff are fully maximised. Emerging results reflect great success with an increase in take up of flexible patterns, including compressed hours. Further evaluation will be carried out in April this year. In February this year, we will be launching a more comprehensive toolkit for managers and staff to provide on-going support and advice.

  North Sea Oil
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the(a) size and (b) lifespan of the North Sea oil reserves. [94126]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department publishes annually estimates of oil reserves on the UK Continental Shelf. The latest estimates are that, as at the end of 2001, remaining proven and probable discovered recoverable reserves amounted to 955 million tonnes. A further 475 million tonnes are classified as possible reserves. It is also estimated that, as of that date, additional reserves of between 205 and 1,930 million tonnes existed in fields that had not yet been discovered. How long these reserves will last will depend on whether the additional and possible reserves are brought into production and the rate at which they are extracted, but production is expected to continue beyond 2020.

  Nurse Co-ordinators
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what guidance will be given to the proposed nurse co-ordinators on seeking consent from potential embryo donors under the new MRC initiative. [93392]

  Ms Hewitt
  The regulatory agencies have agreed that there should be standard donor information and consent forms for the donation of embryos. These have been developed by a committee comprising the Medical Research Council (MRC), Department of Health, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), and Medicines Control Agency and chaired by Professor Richardson (a lawyer and member of the MRC Council). The documentation is being reviewed by the MRC Stem Cell Steering Committee, chaired by Lord Patel. It will then be reviewed by HFEA committees, and once the final draft has been approved, it will be piloted in a selection of IVF clinics. It will then be finalised and distributed to all IVF clinics.

  Post Office Closures
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) urban and (b) rural post offices have closed in Hull and the East Riding since 1 May 1997. [93822]

  Mr. Timms
  I am informed by Post Office Ltd. that historic data on the post office network are not available in the form requested as the company does not require these data for operational reasons. I further understand from the company that it compiled a list of post offices by parliamentary constituency as of 20 April 2002, showing their classification as urban or rural offices. A copy of this list is held in the Libraries of the House.

  Postage Costs
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on recent consultations by Postcomm of a possible rise in the cost of postage. [94097]
  978W
  Mr. Timms
  Postcomm is responsible for setting the price control for Royal Mail services. It issued a consultation on the future price control on 3 October 2002. My Department responded with a written submission, now publicly available on the Postcomm website, so that Postcomm could, in reaching a decision, take into account the context and rationale for the commercially based financial package for Royal Mail, the details of which I announced to the House on 16 January 2003. Postcomm has not yet announced its final decision.

  Renewable Energy Exporters
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications have been received by potential renewable energy exporters for the £50 million in ECGD cover to be available from April 2003; and what extra resources have been allocated within the DTI to encourage applications from the renewable energy sector in the UK. [94149]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 29 January 2003]: ECGD has received three applications and one preliminary inquiry for renewable energy projects that could qualify for support under the renewable energy initiative. Contracts for these projects have still to be agreed, and no guarantees have yet been issued.

  The DTI's Renewables UK team, with two Renewable Energy Trade Promoters, are now encouraging applications from the UK renewable energy sector as part of their on-going trade promotion activities.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the £50 million of ECGD cover to be allocated to renewable energy exporters from April 2003 will be available to exporters of energy from waste technology to the developing world, including municipal mass burn incineration. [94150]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 29 January 2003]: Waste to power projects are generally considered to be a source of renewable energy. Such projects will be eligible for support, provided all other environmental impacts, such as air emissions and impacts on local populations etc, are acceptable.

  UK Economy
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the answer of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths) to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), of 16 January 2003,Official Report, column 809, by which method the Department determines that the United Kingdom is the fastest growing economy in the world. [93851]

  Ms Hewitt
  The best measures of economic activity is GDP. In 2001, the latest year for which data are available, the UK economy grew by 2.0 per cent. This growth rate was higher than that for the other major economies (G7 countries), according to the latest data published by the OECD.

TRANSPORT

  Jones Act
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effects on(a) UK and (b) EU shipping of the United States Jones Act] [93946]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The US Merchant Marine Act of 1920, otherwise known as the "Jones Act", restricts the carriage of sea borne cargo between ports in the United States to vessels constructed and registered in the United States, owned by a United States citizen and manned by United States seafarers. The Act has the effect of denying the opportunity to foreign shipping, including ships registered in the UK and other EU Member States, to compete for coastal trade in the United States. It also affects adversely the ability of foreign shipping companies to move their international cargoes and empty containers more efficiently between US ports using their own vessels on existing international services.

  A14
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when the major A14 improvements included in the preferred plan of the Cambridge to Huntingdon multi-modal study will be entered into the trunk road targeted programme of improvements; [94565]

  (2) whether the funding required for the major A14 improvements included in the preferred plan of the Cambridge to Huntingdon multi-modal study has been reserved within the 10-Year Plan; [94564]s

  (3) what stage the preparatory work on the major A14 improvements included in the preferred plan of the Cambridge to Huntingdon multi-modal study has reached; and when the preparatory work is expected to be completed; [94567]

  (4) for what reasons a timetable to carry out the major Al4 improvements was not included in the Department for Transport, "Delivering Better Transport: Progress Report" of December 2002. [94566]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Preparatory work on the major improvements to the A14 between Huntingdon and Cambridge, which came out of the Cambridge to Huntingdon multi-modal study, are at an advanced stage. The Secretary of State will shortly be receiving the Highways Agency's recommendations after which he will announce his decision. Sufficient funds are available from those set aside for strategic roads in the Government's 10-Year Plan for Transport to pay for this scheme.

  A timetable for this scheme was not included in our progress report on the 10-Year Plan entitled "Delivering Better Transport: Progress Report" published in December as it has yet to be added to the TPI. Such information will be made available when the Secretary of State announces his decision.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department has spent on 980W
  external consultants since its creation; what percentage this sum represents of (a) his Department's total expenditure and (b) the cost of running the Department; and if he will make a statement. [93955]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 28 January 2003]: My Department came into being in May 2002. Expenditure on external consultants by my Department up to the end of December 2002 was £93.1 million. This represents 1 per cent. of my departmental expenditure limit. Of this £93.1 million, £1.7 million relates to the cost of running my Department and this represents 0.4 per cent. of my Department's administration costs limit.

  London Underground PPP
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much the(a) Tube Lines and (b) Metronet consortia have spent on bid costs as part of their PPP bids for London Underground projects. [93397]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The total costs of all of the bidders, successful and unsuccessful, are estimated to be around £270 million. As my reply of 13 January 2003 Official Report, column 398 W to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) explained, the PPP amounts to modernisation of the entire underground network over the next 30-years. The level of bid costs reflects this and also the lengthy duration of the bidding process, which commenced in October 1999. Nonetheless, the level of bid costs represents only an extremely small proportion of the value of investment that will be delivered over the life of the contracts.

  Motorway Tolls
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the likely impact of the introduction of motorway tolls, other than on the M6, on(a) reduction of congestion and (b) encouragement of use of public transport. [93103]

  Mr. Jamieson
  holding answer 23 January 2003: The 'Background Analysis' published in July 2000 as part of the Ten Year Plan For Transport contained an illustrative scenario for charges on the trunk road network by 2010 at times and places where congestion was highest. That indicated an overall reduction of 9 per cent. in congestion compared with levels in 2000, though with variations between areas, including increases of congestion in some places. The effect on public transport was not calculated.

  The Government's report on 'Modernising the Taxation of the Haulage Industry: Progress Report One' published in April 2002 reported analysis of a distance-based lorry road-user charge applying only to motorways, which suggested a reduction of lorry traffic of 25 per cent. on motorways but increases in congestion elsewhere.

  Network Rail
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much Network Rail has lost since its establishment. [93607]
  981W
  Mr. Spellar
  As with any other private company, Network Rail will publish accounts in accordance with the requirements of the Companies Acts. These will show the profit or loss for the relevant reporting period.

  Publicity and Advertising
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much(a) his Department and (b) each agency and non-departmental public body sponsored by his Department spent on (i) publicity and (ii) advertising in each year from 1995–96 to 2002–03 (estimated); and if he will make a statement. [92247]

  Mr. Jamieson
  For details of how much my department has spent on publicity and advertising in each year since 1995/96 to 2002/03,1 refer the hon. Member to replies to the hon. Members for:-

  1. Isle Of Wight (Mr. Turner) on 21March 2002, Official Report, column 484 W which gives annual expenditure from 1997/ 98 to 2001/02,

  2. Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 28 February 2002 Official Report, column 1516–1517W, which requested details of publicity and advertising campaigns and

  3. Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on 9 November 2001 Official Report, column 453–454W, which details the advertising spend from 1995/96 to 2000/2001.

  Figures provided in these replies refer to expenditure by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) and the Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR). Breaking out the transport element for the years 1995/96 to 2000/01 could only be done at disproportionate cost.

  In 2001/02, the Department for Transport spent £15 million on publicity of which £9.85 million was spent on advertising.

  For the current year, 2002/2003 the Department for Transport's estimated spend for publicity and advertising is £17.9 million of which approximately £10.6 million is currently allocated to advertising.

  My Department's main publicity relates to Think! which promotes road safety messages to adults and children and is a vital part of the Government's strategy to reduce road deaths and injuries.

  Figures for Department Agencies and NDPDs are not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Publicity Campaigns
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what promotional and public information campaigns his Department is(a) running and (b) planning to run during the next six months; and for each campaign, (i) how much it will cost, (A) in total and (B) to his Department, (ii) what agencies or bodies are undertaking the work and (iii) what is its planned duration. [93807]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department is currently running three publicity campaigns:
  982W
  Think! road safety:

  My Department's main publicity campaign, where we intend over the next six/12 months to concentrate on messages covering child road safety, child restraints, teenage road safety, speed, seatbelts, fatigue, mobile phones, drink drive and motorcycle safety. Details of the Think! campaign calendar are regularly updated and can be viewed at www.thinkroadsafetv.gov.uk. The Think! advertising and publicity budget for 2003–04 should be just over £14 million, £6 million of which should be spent in the next six months.

  Traveline:

  Promotion of a public transport information service where expenditure of £570k is anticipated between December 2002 and July 2003 covering advertising in directories, merchandising material and posters/leaflets.

  Airports Consultation:

  Publicity to raise awareness of the current national consultation on the future development of air transport in the United Kingdom. The latest consultation will run from February to May at an estimated cost of £260,000.

  In developing these campaigns we use a range of external agencies to help take our campaign strategies forward. The creative work for the Think! campaign is currently provided by two advertising agencies—Leo Burnett and A MV with media planning/buying arranged through Carat. Two external agencies—QBO and Fishburn Hedges are also employed to extend campaign messages to lifestyle magazines and other media; while on traveline, Grasshopper have been employed to secure wider promotional opportunities.

  In addition the Department uses a range of companies on frameworks covering research, design, typesetting, paper and print, and storage/distribution. Details of fees paid to each company are commercial in confidence.

  Railtrack (Administration)
  Mr. Redwood:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how much the Administration for Railtrack claimed in fees and expenses. [93605]

  (2) what the total cost was of administration for Railtrack. [93608]

  Mr. Spellar
  To date, total costs incurred are £49.5 million. Under the Railway Administration Order Rules 2001, the administrators intend to apply the High Court to seek approval for their fees and expenses. Network Rail will then reimburse the Department for Transport for those costs that were properly an expense of the administration. Only when the High Court has made a decision on the application will the total costs of administration be known.

  Regional Air Services
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport from which organisations and corporate entities he has received representations on the South East and East of England Regional Air Services study and future airport policy in the South East, since 30 November 2002. [94447]
  983W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The following information lists responses to "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom (South East)" received from the main organisations and corporate entities dated 30 November 2002 or later. It includes responses submitted both in hard and electronic copy, but does not include responses to the NOP questionnaire.

  Air Transport Greener by Design

  Ashford Borough Council

  Air Transport Action Group

  Babergh District Council Bexley Council

  Bluebase

  British Airline Pilots

  Association Business Focus

  Chartered Institute of Purchasing And Supply

  Colchester Borough Council

  Council for Travel and Tourism

  Crawley Borough Council

  East of England Local Government Conference

  East of England Development Agency

  English Heritage

  English, Welsh and Scottish Railway

  Essex County Council Freedom to Fly Coalition

  Friends of the Earth—West London

  Guildford Borough

  Hillingdon London Borough

  Institute of Logistics and Transport

  Kent Thameside Association

  Levett-Therivel Sustain Ability Consultants

  Local Authorities Aircraft Noise Council

  London City Airport

  London Forum of Amenity and Civic Societies

  National Air Traffic Service

  Norwich City Council

  Oneworld Global Airline Alliance

  Redhill Aerodrome Ltd.

  Royal Borough of Chelsea and Kensington

  Stop Stansted Expansion

  The Sevenoaks Society

  Thames Gateway—South Essex

  Thurrock Council

  Tring Town Council

  Wildlife and Countryside Link

  Woodland Trust

  The consultation period throughout the UK remains open until we have consulted on Gatwick runway options. We hope to issue a revised South East consultation paper next month. The consultation period will then run for four months after the date of publication of the new material. Those who have already responded to the consultation will be able to amend, add to, or replace their response having considered the new material, if they wish to do so.
  984W
  All responses to the consultation will be considered and analysed carefully before final decisions are taken. These will be set out in an air transport White Paper, which we aim to publish towards the end of the year.

  Road Building (Stonehenge)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to publish the draft orders relating to road construction at Stonehenge. [94084]

  Mr Jamieson
  The current programme is for draft orders to be published in May 2003.

  Rolling Stock
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the estimated cost is of upgrading the power supply in Railtrack's southern zones to enable the comprehensive overhaul of current trains and rolling stock. [93817]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The scope, scale and cost of the power supply upgrade is still emerging but the current estimate is £915 million including a contingency.

  Strategic Rail Authority (Consultants)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 7 January,Official Report, column 108W, on Strategic Rail Authority (Consultants), (1) if he will make a statement on the work conducted for the Strategic Rail Authority (a) by Booz Allen and Hamilton on the Virgin trains franchise negotiation, (b) by KPMG on financial advisers for Virgin Rail Group Negotiations and (c) by KPMG on the Virgin Rail Ltd scope review and the financial advisers for Virgin Rail Group Negotiations. [93234]

  (2) if he will make a statement on (a) the PLANET models, (b) the work by Nichols on Mark 1 rolling-stock, (c) the work by NDS Transmodal on innovation competition, (d) Project Tide, (e) the WARM(E) project and (f) Project Radar. [93233]

  (3) if he will place in the Library copies of the (a) review of international rail services conducted by Steer Davies and Gleave, (b) study into why operational performance has failed to revert to pre-Hatfield levels, conducted by AEA Technology, (c) studies of Project Ariel, SPVs and enhancements, conducted by Lazards, (d) study of the financial adviser to Scottish passenger rail franchise relet conducted by KPMG, (e) study of Mark 1, strategic reserve vehicles conducted by Jacobs Gibb, (f) studies on due diligence of Railtrack and CLG bus plan, conducted by Booz Allen and Hamilton and (g) ELL provision of timetable validation study conducted by AEA Technology. [93232]

  Mr. Jamieson
  These are matters for the Strategic Rail Authority. I have asked the Authority to contact the hon. Member directly about the information he seeks.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many incidents of(a) terrorist activity and (b) suspected terrorist activity were recorded by (i) the Marine Accident Investigation Branch Transport

  985W
  Police and (ii) other organisations relating to marine and port activities, in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [93243]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No incidents of terrorist activity targeted against ports in the UK have been recorded since 1997. Similarly, in the same period, we have no record of any incidents of suspected terrorist activity targeted against UK ports or the ships serving them. However, the hon.Member will recall the successful boarding of the MV Nisha on 21December 2001 in response to a potential terrorist threat. Our suspicions proved on that occasion to be unfounded, as the ship was wholly innocent.

  Wapping Tube Station
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of Wapping tube station.[93730]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Preparatory work to enable a northern extension to London Underground's East London Line is under way. It is clearly crucial that stations on any extended line comply with modern safety standards, given the increased number of passengers expected. I understand that Wapping presents particular challenges in ensuring safety compliance, given its age and restricted space. Studies are under way to explore the options for addressing these issues and no final decision has been taken on the station's future.

TREASURY

  Euro
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with the governments of(a) Gibraltar, (b) Jersey, (c) Guernsey and (d) the Isle of Man regarding the Single European Currency. [94200]

  Ruth Kelly
  Government officials meet often with representatives of Gibraltar, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man to discuss a range of issues.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what target he has for the proportion of businesses which will be prepared for euro entry at the time of his Department's assessment on whether Britain meets the five economic tests for euro entry. [94344]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government are committed to completing an assessment of the five tests within two years of the start of this Parliament. While the Treasury has not set any targets for the proportion of businesses to make preparations it has published two outline National Changeover Plans and regular euro preparation updates containing practical information. Copies of these publications are available in the Library of the House. It is up to individual businesses to decide whether to make preparations for possible UK entry.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when his Department next intends to conduct a survey of the proportion of businesses prepared for membership of the euro.[94345]
  986W
  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) on 13 January 2003, Official Report, columns 414W-15W, and 20 January 2003, Official Report, column 54W.

  Savings and Pensions
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what incentives he is putting in place to encourage young people to invest in(a) individual pension schemes and (b) individual savings accounts; and if he will make a statement. [94250]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government recognise the value of saving and asset-ownership in providing people with security, comfort in retirement and long-term independence and security. To address the problems that may have discouraged people of all ages from saving in the past the Government are implementing a strategy designed to:

  create the right environment for saving;

  provide incentives to save through favourable tax treatment; and

  ensure everyone has access to the financial information they need to make informed savings decisions.

  Young people will, in particular, benefit from pension rules allowing annual contributions of £3,600 irrespective of earnings and already benefit from the ISA rules which allow 16 and 17-year-olds to open a cash ISA. These measures provide the opportunity to begin saving tax-free at an early stage.

  Textile Industry
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of staff made redundant in the textile industry between 1990 and 2000 found new employment; and in what sectors. [92099]

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

  Letter from L. Cook to Mr. Keith Vaz, dated 30 January 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on redundancies in the textile industry.(92099)
  The available information from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) of households is that a total of 151,000 people were made redundant from the textiles and textile products industry (Standard Industrial Classification 1992 subsection DB) between March 1997 and November 2002. Of these, 32 per cent had found new employment by the time they were interviewed in the LFS up to three months after being made redundant. Of the 151,000 people made redundant, 13 per cent found new employment in the textiles and textile products industry, 19 per cent found new employment in the manufacturing sector as a whole and 13 per cent in the services sector.

  Unemployment (Haltemprice and Howden)
  David Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were unemployed in Haltemprice and Howden in the last 13 months for which figures are available. [93783]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  987W
  Letter from L. Cook to Mr. David Davis, dated 30 January 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question regarding the number of people who were unemployed in Haltemprice and Howden in (a) the last month for which figures are available and (b) the preceding 12 months.
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles statistics of unemployment from surveys following the international standard International Labour Organisation definition. However the survey sample size is too small to provide estimates for the Haltemprice and Howden Parliamentary Constituency. ONS also compiles claimant count statistics of those claiming Jobseeker's Allowance.
  Information on the level of claimants for the Haltemprice and Howden Parliamentary Constituency between December 2001 and December 2002 can be obtained from the Nomis(r) database at the House of Commons Library.

  Working Tax Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claim forms for(a) child tax credit and (b) working tax credit have so far (i) been issued and (ii) been returned.[94023]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There is a single claim form for these tax credits.

  By 29 December 2002 about 4.7 million claim forms had been-issued and just over 2 million claims received (including 165,000 on-line).

  Accounting Practices
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to increase the powers and resources of the Financial Services Authority to investigate the accounting practices of companies. [94520]

  Ruth Kelly
  The powers of the Financial Services Authority are set out in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and the secondary legislation under it. In respect of the accounting practices of companies, my RHF the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced yesterday, in response to the recommendation of the Co-ordinating Group on Audit and Accounting Issues, that the FSA will play a greater role, in partnership with the Financial Reporting Review Panel, in the enforcement of accounting standards, particularly in identifying the risks to be investigated and the selection of company accounts for investigation.

  Annuities
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Financial Services Authority will add income drawdown schemes to the comparative tables that it plans to publish on annuities. [93878]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Financial Services Authority (FSA) tell me that they do not propose to include income drawdown arrangements in their comparative tables.

  The FSA annuity Comparative Tables will provide annuity rates for what are generally referred to as `standards annuities' joint and single life, escalating and non-escalating, smoker and non-smoker rates. These are the annuities purchased by over 80 per cent. of annuitants.

  BABY Expenses
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what provision is available for poorer families to assist with expenses incurred in the arrival of a new baby, with particular reference to the purchase of new mattresses. [93475]

  Ruth Kelly
  The sure start maternity grant, worth £500, is available to people receiving income support, income-based jobseekers allowance, working families tax credit or disabled person's tax credit, to help cover the costs of a new baby. Claims can be made at any time from 11 weeks before a baby is due until three months after birth, or up to three months after the date of adoption or parental order. Those claiming must submit a certificate signed by a health professional confirming that health and welfare advice has been received.

  From April 2003, the child tax credit will create a seamless system of income-related support for families with children. Paid on top of child benefit, the child tax credit will provide a family element of £545 a year for all families with incomes of less than £50,000, plus a child element of £1,445 for each child or young person in families with incomes of up to around £13,000 a year. In the first year of a child's birth the family element is doubled, to £1,090.

  From April 2003, the sure start maternity grant will be available to all parents who receive more than the family element of child tax credit.

  Budget Changes
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the principal components of the changes in the budget of HM Treasury from 2002–03 to 2005–06; and if he will make a statement. [92791]

  Ruth Kelly
  The largest components are a £34 million anticipated decrease in the utilisation of accounting provisions by the Office of Government Commerce relating to the vacant civil estate; and a £15 million reduction in expected OGC income from other Departments.

  Business Investment
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the level of business investment was in each quarter since 1997. [94396]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Stephen O'Brien, dated 30 January 2003:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning what the level of business investment was in each quarter since 1997. (94396)

  The information is available in the January 2003 edition of Economic Trends (No. 590). This is a National Statistics publication and is available in the House of Commons Library. The data required are

  989W
  contained in "Table 2.7 Gross fixed capital formation" on page T10. The series identifier for seasonally adjusted constant price business investment is NPEL.

  The most recent business investment data are also available from the business investment First Release which is available in the Library or from the National Statistics website "www.statistics.gov.uk" under "more releases".

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research he has commissioned into the long-term effect of a drop in business investment on the(a) competitiveness, (b) productivity and (c) purchasing power parity of the UK economy. [94399]

  Ruth Kelly
  There is ample evidence that business investment is one of the essential drivers rising productivity and living standards. The Government's approach to raising competitiveness and productivity centres: on maintaining a stable macroeconomic environment conducive to individuals and firms investing for the long term; and implementing microeconomic reforms to remove any barriers that prevent markets from functioning effectively.

  Business Property Refit
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the change in Government revenues from the abolition of Business Property Refit and Agricultural Property Refit; and if he will make a statement. [93718]

  (2) if he will estimate the change in Government revenues from imposing a ceiling of £250,000 on assets that receive relief under Business Property Refit and Agricultural Property Refit; and if he will make a statement. [93719]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The costs of inheritance tax business property and agricultural property relief in 2002–2003 are forecast to be £.110 million and £130 million respectively.

  Capping each relief at £250,000 would reduce these costs to £50 million and £70 million respectively.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the change in Government revenues from changing the capital gains tax regime simultaneously to abolish taper relief, reintroduce retirement relief and abolish the exemption of capital gains accrued but unrealised at death. [93717]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The full year yield, including the effect of likely taxpayer reaction, from simultaneously abolishing taper relief and reintroducing retirement relief is estimated to be £200 million in 2002–03 and £400 million in 2003–04.
  990W
  The latest available estimate of the current cost of Capital Gains Tax relief for gains accrued but unrealised at death is £500 million for 2002–03. However this takes no account of taxpayers reaction to such a major change. The yield from abolition of this relief may be significantly different due to changes in taxpayers' behaviour.

  A reliable estimate of the total yield from all measures is only available at disproportionate cost.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he last met the Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency to discuss progress on county court judgments, committal proceedings and the withdrawal of driving licences for non-payment of maintenance; and if he will make a statement. [89764]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Ministers have regular meetings with the Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency to discuss, among other topics, the current performance of the Agency.

  Civil Servants (Bonus Payments)
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was paid in bonus payments to civil servants in 2001–02 related to performance in his Department. [92950]

  Ruth Kelly
  During the financial year 2001–02 a total of £274,980 in performance bonus payments was paid to staff.

  Clearing Banks
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to open(a) the banking money transmission service and (b) central clearing to all major clearing banks. [94380]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government are closely monitoring developments in money transmission systems‒otherwise known as 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. It is envisaged that these new powers will include provisions designed to tackle potential restrictions on access to payment systems.

  Progress has already been made through, for example, 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.

  Climate Change Levy
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what receipts he received during the fiscal year 2001–02 from companies subject to negotiated agreements under the Climate Change Levy. [94144]

  John Healey
  Information is not available on the levy receipts the Exchequer received during 2001–02 from those companies covered by negotiated climate change agreements.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates the Inland Revenue has made of the costs of administering the Construction Industry Scheme(a) for the construction industry and (b) for the Inland Revenue in the last financial year. [91953]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Construction businesses are not required to report the costs they incur in administering CIS and consequently information on compliance costs is limited. Any estimates are therefore tentative but for the year 2001–02 the Inland Revenue estimate that they could have been in the region of £75 million.

  (b) The annual cost to the Inland Revenue of administering the IT system that supports CIS is in the order of £8 million. This figure does not include the costs of people working in our Network Offices and who support the system through processing work, customer support, and tax compliance activity. Generally speaking, these people carry out a wider range of activities and it would not be

  practical to apportion their costs between the time spent on CIS and on other activities.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when a decision will be taken on the future of the Construction Industry Scheme. [94849]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A decision on the future of the Scheme will be taken following analysis of the responses to the consultation document, "The Inland Revenue and the Construction Industry: Working Together for a New Scheme".

  Contingent Liabilities
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the Government's contingent liabilities; [94342]

  (2) if he intends to list the Government's contingent liabilities in his forthcoming Budget statement; [94343]
  992W
  (3) if he will list the criteria which Government liabilities must meet if they are not to be included in estimates of public borrowing. [94341]

  Mr. Boateng
  Under UK accounting standards, a liability is treated as contingent if it is dependent on uncertain future events, cannot be estimated with sufficient reliability, or is not likely to be called. By definition, contingent liabilities may never result in actual expenditure. Therefore they are not included in estimates of public expenditure or borrowing unless or until there is a reasonable expectation that expenditure will be incurred.

  The Government does not need to publish separate details of contingent liabilities in the forthcoming Budget statement because these are published in the Supplementary Statement to the Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund Accounts. This lists all outstanding contingent liabilities during the financial year where they are reportable to Parliament using the criteria set out in Government Accounting. The Supplementary Statement for 2001–02 was published on 19 December 2002 (HC 381). In addition, departments must follow accounting standards when disclosing contingent liabilities by way of notes to their accounts.

  Cooking Oil Fuels
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on paying duty on fuels made from cooking oil. [93474]

  John Healey
  Any substance, whether or not it is a mineral oil, is subject to excise duty where it is used as a road fuel. This duty is normally charged at the rate of the fuel for which that substance is substituting. Where cooking oil is used in diesel-engined cars, it will normally be liable at the rate set for ultra-low sulphur diesel, which is 45.82p per litre. Some cooking oil, however, may meet the specification for biodiesel for duty purposes. The duty rate for biodiesel used as a road fuel is 25.82p per litre.

  Currency Instability
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect on the UK economy of the current relative instability of major international currencies. [94851]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Paper for the Treasury Committee on the Treasury's approach to the preliminary and technical work, published on 6 September 2002, set out a number of supporting studies that will be published alongside the assessment of the five economic tests. Further detail can be found in the 6 September Paper. Analysis of international currency movements and their effects will form part of this work.

  Earnings
  Andrew George
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the house price to earnings ratio was for each year since 1978 in(a) England, (b) local authorities defined as rural and (c) by region. [90830]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  North East

  North West

  Yorkshire & Humber

  East Midlands

  West Midlands

  East

  London

  South east

  South west

  England

  1990

  3.38

  3.96

  4.29

  4.66

  5.00

  5.18

  5.58

  5.73

  5.47

  5.31

  1991

  3.41

  3.80

  4.14

  4.20

  4.60

  4.70

  4.99

  5.25

  4.92

  4.80

  1992

  3.23

  3.79

  3.79

  3.89

  4.17

  4.12

  4.20

  4.65

  4.35

  4.27

  1993

  3.45

  3.63

  3.69

  3.66

  3.93

  4.14

  3.90

  4.53

  3.96

  3.96

  1994

  3.45

  3.62

  3.51

  3.65

  3.85

  4.06

  3.98

  4.58

  3.97

  3.94

  1995

  3.24

  3.44

  3.44

  3.51

  3.83

  4.08

  3.87

  4.54

  3.97

  3.87

  1996

  3.19

  3.38

  3.47

  3.58

  3.83

  4.12

  3.89

  4.60

  4.04

  3.89

  1997

  3.31

  3.49

  3.53

  3.61

  3.95

  4.46

  4.31

  4.93

  4.20

  4.11

  1998

  3.34

  3.56

  3.52

  3.77

  4.04

  4.81

  4.71

  6.28

  4.50

  4.39

  1999

  3.50

  3.70

  3.59

  3.78

  4.15

  4.94

  5.51

  5.63

  4.83

  4.71

  2000

  3.47

  3.84

  3.64

  4.11

  4.55

  5.47

  6.00

  6.37

  5.35

  5.15

  2001

  3.55

  4.10

  3.85

  4.40

  4.62

  5.74

  6.17

  6.62

  5.65

  5.31

  Sources:

  New Earnings Survey, ONS

  Survey of Mortgage Lenders, ODPM

  EU (Economic Reform)
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 23 January 2003, Official Report, column 428W, on EU (economic reform), what discussions his Department has had with its European counterparts regarding (a) the steps for economic reform in the EU, detailed in the Government's White Paper on European economic reform, "Realising Europe's Potential: Economic Reform in Europe", February 2002 and (b) general economic reform in the EU. [94429]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Department has had numerous discussions with its European counterparts on the economic reform issues detailed in the Government's White Paper, and on European economic reform in general, within ECOFIN (and its associated committees), and in the context of the annual spring European Council on economic reform.

  EU Financial Market Liberalisation
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his Department's plans for liberalisation of financial markets in the European Union, as set out in the Government's White Paper on European economic reform, "Realising Europe's Potential: Economic Reform in Europe", February 2002, depend on(a) wider membership of European economic and monetary union among all EU states and (b) British membership of EMU. [94394]

  Ruth Kelly
  Liberalisation of financial markets does not depend on membership of European economic and monetary union.
  994W
  Only some of the data requested are available because earnings data at local authority level cannot easily be obtained within a reasonable time period.

  The house price to earnings ratio has been determined from 1990 to 2001 (a) for England and (b) for each of the Government office regions. It is important to note that the average earnings used to produce this table are based on the region where the individual worked—which is not necessarily the region in which they lived. Comparisons with house prices within the same region may therefore be inappropriate.

  Exempt Transfers
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of(a) the number and (b) the value of potentially exempt transfers in the last year for which data is available; and if he will make a statement. [93710]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Insufficient data is available on which to base such estimates.

  HIPC Initiative
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 20 January 2003, Official Report, columns 54–55W, on the HIPC initiative, for what reasons figures for 2001 and 2002 on external debt outstanding for countries between decision point and completion point are not available.[93912]

  John Healey
  There are various sources of data for the external debt of developing countries. However, the most authoritative and complete source is "Global Development Finance" published by the World Bank. The last edition published in March 2002 provides figures on external debt for all these countries up until 2000, figures for 2001 will be published in the 2003 edition.

  HM Customs
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether it is the policy of HM Customs to withhold from the media details of seizures, arrests, and subsequent charges. [92997]
  995W
  (2) what gun and other ordnance seizures were made by HM Customs in (a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002, identifying (i) the weaponry seized, (ii) where it was seized, (iii) where the weaponry was hidden and (iv) subsequent arrests and charges; and what estimate he has made of the number of seizures where the weaponry was destined for organised crime gangs.[93006]

  Number of illegal firearms seized by Customs and Excise

  Year ended 31 March

  Hand guns

  Rifles

  Shotguns

  Self defence Sprays

  Stun Guns

  Total

  2000

  417

  95

  129

  1,169

  101

  1,911

  2001

  163

  48

  44

  2,428

  114

  2,697

  2002

  304

  111

  219

  1,237

  144

  2,015

  The majority of seizures were made in various ports, airports and international parcel postal depots. No centrally held and readily accessible information is available on where the weapons were hidden or whether any detection involved criminal proceedings being instituted.

  Figures for illegal firearms seized are not yet available for the period between April and November 2002, but within the overall totals since April 2002 Customs have made four significant seizures of consignments of guns believed to be destined for criminal use. Firearms seized total some 20 hand guns and 35 sub machine guns plus a quantity of ammunition and explosive. The cases are subject to continuing investigation by Police and Customs. Customs do not release information if there is a risk of prejudicing ongoing or future enquiries, as provided for by Exemptions 4 (Law enforcement and

  Average house prices in rural local authorities by region, 1996–2002—at current prices

  (£) Region

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  20021

  East

  68,789

  75,031

  81,929

  90,250

  104,986

  118,988

  139,817

  East Midlands

  64,383

  68,442

  74,321

  80,404

  89,915

  99,631

  115,919

  North East

  53,655

  57,563

  58,448

  63,614

  65,776

  68,825

  76,113

  North West

  59,356

  63,177

  65,935

  70,950

  75,636

  82,354

  91,781

  South East

  84,847

  92,392

  103,120

  115,551

  135,758

  149,571

  168,999

  South West

  71,674

  77,565

  84,515

  94,136

  108,854

  122,187

  144,183

  West Midlands

  71,383

  77,854

  84,089

  91,416

  100,481

  114,167

  131,626

  Yorkshire and Humber

  66,011

  69,164

  70,886

  75,979

  81,359

  89,006

  105,069

  All England2

  73,929

  80,669

  88,427

  98,513

  110,724

  121,916

  138,296

  1Q1 to Q3

  2Urban and Rural

  Average house prices in rural local authorities by region, 1996–2002—at constant 1996 prices

  (£) Region

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  20021

  East

  68,789

  72,744

  76,799

  83,321

  94,136

  104,783

  121,652

  East Midlands

  64,383

  66,356

  69,667

  74,230

  80,623

  87,737

  100,859

  North East

  53,655

  55,809

  54,789

  58,730

  58,978

  60,609

  66,225

  North West

  59,356

  61,252

  61,806

  65,502

  67,819

  72,523

  79,857

  South East

  84,847

  89,577

  96,663

  106,679

  121,727

  131,716

  147,044

  South West

  71,674

  75,201

  79,223

  86,908

  97,605

  107,600

  125,451

  West Midlands

  71,383

  75,481

  78,824

  84,397

  90,096

  100,538

  114,526

  996W
  (3) how many gun seizures there were at British ports by HM Customs between April 2002 and November 2002; how many arrests were made; and how many people were charged in connection with these seizures. [92979]

  John Healey
  Up to 31 March 2002, the period for which information is available, most seizures of firearms were regulatory breaches with little to suggest they were being imported for criminal purposes. Number of illegal firearms seized by Customs and Excise

  legal proceedings) and 7 (Effective management and operations of the public service) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  House Prices
  Andrew George
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average price of a house was in real terms in(a) England and (b) local authorities defined as rural, by region, in each year since 1978. [90834]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  Although the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Survey of Mortgage Lenders has been a valuable source of information on house prices back to 1968, data from the survey are reliable only down to regional level. Reliable house price information at local authority level has only been available since 1996 when the Land Registry constructed its database of all property transactions in England and Wales. Consequently the data presented in the following tables cover only the period 1996 to 2002 (Q1 to Q3).
  997W

  Average house prices in rural local authorities by region, 1996–2002—at constant 1996 prices

  (£)Region

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  20021

  Yorkshire and Humber

  66,011

  67,056

  66,447

  70,145

  72,951

  78,381

  91,419

  All England2

  73,929

  78,211

  82,890

  90,949

  99,281

  107,362

  120,329

  1Q1 to Q3

  2Urban and Rural

  Note:

  The rural local authorities included in the above figures are those that are classified by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as "mixed rural" or "deeply rural".

  Source:

  Land Registry

  Income Drawdown Policies
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many investors have taken out income drawdown policies in each year since their inception in 1995; [93877]

  (2) how many people in each of the last five years who previously had an income drawdown scheme bought an annuity before they were 75-years-old. [93876]

  Ruth Kelly
  Available estimates of the number of new income drawdown plans purchased are contained in the following table.

  New Income Drawdown Plans1

  Year

  Number of new policies (thousand)

  1996

  10

  1997

  14

  1998

  19

  1999

  18

  2000

  14

  2001

  15

  Source:

  Association of British Insurers (ABI). Note that figures are only available from 1996.

  £ billion

  Taxable income exceeding

  Income tax rates (percentage)

  42

  44

  45

  48

  50

  52

  54

  55

  60k

  1.8

  3.2

  3.9

  5.9

  7.2

  8.6

  9.9

  10.6

  70k

  1.6

  2.8

  3.4

  5.2

  6.4

  7.6

  8.8

  9.4

  80k

  1.5

  2.6

  3.1

  4.7

  5.8

  6.9

  8

  8.5

  90k

  1.4

  2.4

  2.8

  4.3

  5.3

  6.3

  7.3

  7.8

  100k

  1.3

  2.2

  2.6

  4

  4.9

  5.8

  6.7

  7.2

  120k

  1.1

  1.9

  2.3

  3.5

  4.3

  5.1

  5.9

  6.3

  140k

  1

  1.7

  2.1

  3.1

  3.9

  4.6

  5.3

  5.6

  150k

  1

  1.6

  2

  3

  3.7

  4.4

  5

  5.4

  175k

  0.9

  1.5

  1.8

  2.7

  3.3

  3.9

  4.5

  4.8

  200k

  0.8

  1.3

  1.6

  2.4

  3

  3.5

  4.1

  4.4

  220k

  0.7

  1.3

  1.5

  2.3

  2.8

  3.3

  3.8

  4.1

  250k

  0.7

  1.1

  1.4

  2.1

  2.5

  3

  3.5

  3.7

  The estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with the November 2002 pre-Budget report. These estimates exclude any behavioural response to the tax change.

  Income Tax/National Insurance
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the average lifetime contributions in(a) Income Tax and (b) National Insurance of (i) university graduates and (ii) non-graduates. [94125]
  998W
  No estimates are available of the number who have purchased an annuity before aged 75 after having been in income drawdown.

  Income Tax
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenue gain from an income tax rate of(a) 42 per cent., (b) 44 per cent., (c) 45 per cent., (d) 48 per cent., (e) 50 per cent., (f) 52 per cent., (g) 54 per cent. and (h) 55 per cent. on taxable incomes exceeding (i) £60,000 pa, (ii) 70,000 pa, (iii) £80,000 pa, (iv) £90,000 pa, (v) £100,000 pa, (vi) £120,000 pa, (vii) £140,000 pa, (viii) £150,000 pa, (ix) £175,000 pa, (x) £200,000 pa, (xi) £220,000 pa and (xii) £250,000 pa. [93478]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The full year revenue gain in 2003–04 from making the changes is set out in the table.

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue does not hold information about the qualifications of taxpayers or people paying National Insurance Contributions.

  Industrial Action/Illness
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many working days have been lost in his Department and its predecessors due to(a) industrial action and (b) illness in each year since 1997. [93166]

  Ruth Kelly
  (holding answer 27 January 2003)No working days have been lost due to industrial action since 1997. On sick absence I refer the hon. Member to
  999W
  the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Nigel Evans) on 16 January 2003,Official Report, column 753W.

  Landfill Tax Credit Scheme
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of unpaid volunteers involved in schemes funded by the landfill tax credit scheme.[94085]

  John Healey
  No estimate has been made of the number of unpaid volunteers involved in projects funded by the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme. However, the Government are conscious of the good work they do, and is committed to promoting volunteering, as outlined in the discussion document "Next Steps on Volunteering and Giving in the UK", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Volunteers can make an enormous contribution to our society, in helping to meet social and environmental challenges.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the amount of private funds attracted by the public funds provided by the landfill tax credit scheme in each year since its inception.[94086]

  John Healey
  No precise figures are held on the quantity of match funding obtained by projects funded through the landfill tax credit scheme. However, a study by Glasgow Caledonian University for Entrust, the scheme's regulator, has estimated that on average waste management and recycling projects have levered in approximately 34 per cent. additional funding in addition to landfill tax credit scheme funding.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the(a) international and (b) domestic travel costs were of each Treasury Minister in each year since 2000.[94377]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, on 22 January 2003,Official Report, column 334W.

  Mortgage Equity
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the level of mortgage equity withdrawal was in each quarter since 1997.[94395]

  Ruth Kelly:
  Figures on mortgage equity withdrawal are produced by the Bank of England and can be found on their website at www.bankofengland.co.uk/mew.xls.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research he has commissioned into the effect mortgage equity withdrawal has on the UK economy; and if he will make a statement. [94410]

  Ruth Kelly
  Full consideration is given to such effects in the assessments of economic developments and prospects published by the Treasury in Pre-Budget and Budget Reports.

  Public-Private Partnerships
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 21 November
  1000W
  2002, Official Report, column 280W, on PPP and PFI, what plans he has to review the system of assessing whether a PFI deal is on or off balance sheet.[94423]

  Mr. Boateng
  None. The Government's policy when accounting for PFI contracts is to follow Generally Accepted Accounting Practice (GAAP). In particular, Application Note F to Financial Reporting Standard 5—Private Finance Initiatives and Similar Contract complemented by the Treasury Taskforce Technical Note No. 1 (Revised) 'How to Account for PFI Transactions'.

  The balance sheet treatment of particular assets procured through PFI is audited by the National Audit Office or, where applicable, the Audit Commission, not the Government.

  Rebated Gas Oil
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 16 January 2003, Official Report, column 752W, on rebated gas oil, what criteria are used in determining whether red diesel can be used by a vehicle. [94028]

  John Healey
  The Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979 sets out the circumstances in which rebated (or "red") diesel can be used in vehicles.

  HM Customs and Excise Notice 75—"Fuel for road vehicles"—explains this and is available from either the Customs National Advice Service (tel: 0845 010900) or from the Customs website (www.hmce.gov.uk)

  Stock Market
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions his Department has had with representatives of(a) business, (b) the insurance sector and (c) the pension fund sector on the value of the FTSE 100 share index.[94390]

  Ruth Kelly
  Ministers and officials regularly meet representatives from business and the financial sector and discuss a range of issues.

  Tax Harmonisation
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he(a) has had and(b) intends to have with his European counterparts concerning harmonisation of VAT and corporation tax levels as a result of Franco-German agreement concerning the future of the European Union. [92768]

  Dawn Primarolo:
  The Government have made it quite clear that the harmonisation of VAT and corporation tax levels is not the way forward for Europe.

  Tobacco Smuggling
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 20 January 2003, Official Report, column 48W, on tobacco smuggling, when the Government expect to publish their response to the Committee of Public Accounts' report on tobacco smuggling.[94018]
  1001W
  John Healey
  The Government will publish their response to the Committee of Public Accounts' report on tobacco smuggling in the normal way by Treasury Minute.

  Diversity Programme
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the cost of the HM Treasury(a) diversity action plan and (b) diversity programme in each year since 1997–98. [93447]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury's diversity awareness programme was introduced in spring 2001. The cost of the awareness programme is met from within the Treasury's existing DEL.

  Feedback Programme
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost was of the HM Treasury 360 degree feedback programme in each of the last three years; how many HM Treasury staff went on this programme; what its purpose is; and if he will make a statement.[93446]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury has in place a 360 feedback programme as part of its drive to improve leadership skills and in response to the Cabinet Office target that all of the Senior Civil Service should go through a 360 feedback and personal development programme. To date, 115 people have taken part in the programme, including 42 people below the Senior Civil Service. The cost of the programme was met from within the Treasury's existing DEL.

  Staff (Pay)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the highest percentage pay rises were among HM Treasury staff in each year from 1997; which staff received these pay rises; and if he will make a statement.
  [93442]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Percentage increase

  Reason

  1999–2000

  7.4

  Increase due to exceptional performance and relatively low existing salary

  2000–01

  15.1

  Increase due to exceptional performance and relatively low existing salary

  2001–02

  15.0

  Increase in the range minimum

  2002–03

  7.6

  Increase due to exceptional performance and relatively low existing salary

  To provide the percentage pay rises for the years 1997 and 1998 the cost would be disproportionate.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the average percentage pay rise in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03 for HM Treasury staff, broken down to show (i) all staff and (ii) Senior Civil Service staff; and if he will make a statement. [93444]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information is as follows:
  1002W

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Below Senior Civil Service (%)

  4.4

  4.2

  Senior Civil Service (%)

  5.0

  8.4

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Family Incomes
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many families had an income below £10,000 a year in each of the last five years. [94439]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the table:

  Proportion of families with children with total income below £10,000 a year at 2001–02 prices

  Percentage

  1997–98

  16

  1998–99

  15

  1999–2000

  13

  2000–01

  12

  2001–02

  11

  Notes:

  1. Figures are based on a total income of £10,000 at 2001–02 prices. Constant prices are worked out on the basis of survey year, for instance, April 2001 to March 2002.

  2. The estimates are based on sample counts that have been adjusted for non-response using multi-purpose grossing factors that control for tenure type, council tax band and a number of demographic variables. Estimates are subject to sampling error and remaining response bias.

  3. Total income is income from all sources for all adults and children, including tax credits

  4. Total income has not been adjusted for family size.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey (Great Britain).

  Family Incomes (Warrington, North)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number of families in Warrington, North whose family income is(a) less than £10,000, (b) between £10,000 and £20,000 and (c) between £20,000 and £30,000 per annum. [94374]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is not available.

  Child Benefit Claims
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many child benefit claims have been received in(a) total and (b) via the electronic claim process since the launch of the child benefit electronic claim form; and how many claims proved to be successful. [93054]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Child Benefit electronic claims process was introduced on 28 October 2002. The total number of Child Benefit claims received in the Child Benefit Centre during the period 28 October 2002 to 13 January 2003 was 156,852. Of these, 1,797 claims were received electronically, 1.1 per cent. of overall total. During the same period around 11,000 claims were
  1003W
  disallowed in total, although this will include some claims made before 28 October. No information is available on the proportion of disallowed claims that were received electronically.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what changes he plans to make to the operation of the Child Support Agency; when those changes will come into effect; and if he will make a statement. [94010]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral statement given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to the House on 27 January 2003, Official Report, column 567–68.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what evaluation has been undertaken of the changes in the single room rent regulations of housing benefit; what the conclusion of that evaluation were; and if he will make a statement. [89410]

  Malcolm Wicks
  To help promote work incentives, we broadened the definition of the Single Room Rent (SRR) from 2 July 2001 to reflect better the type of accommodation available in the market to young single people. Our aim is both to ease the problems faced by young people in getting and maintaining accommodation, and encourage landlords to rent to young adults.

  This year we will be testing out the Standard Local Housing Allowances (SLHA) in around 10 pathfinder local authorities. Private sector tenants will be paid according to average local rents rather than rents charged. This will allow people to know in advance what housing benefit support they will receive, promote choice and personal responsibility and bridge the gap between benefit and work by allowing tenants to budget for their own rent. The evaluation of the pathfinders will include tracking the effects of the SLHA on people under 25 years of age, and the results will inform consideration of whether any changes to the younger person rent restrictions are necessary.

  As part of a wider project examining the options for simplification of housing benefit in the private rent sector, "Housing Benefit Simplification in the Private Rented Sector" by Pettigrew N and Thomas A (DWP in-house research report No.107), looked at the SRR. This report was published in December 2002 and a copy is available in the Library.

  Income Support
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the impact of reducing or withdrawing income support from lone parent students prior to receipt of student loans at the start of term. [92103]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Government are encouraging everyone with the necessary qualifications, including lone parents, to enter further and higher education. For further education institutions in England', we have increased the ring-fenced budget for child care funds by 1004W
  20 per cent. to £36 million in 2002–03. In higher education in England and Wales', lone parents already pay no tuition fees if their income is less than £20,480, and have access to a range of support including grants for child care, school meals and travel, books and equipment. These grants are being simplified from next September, as all lone parents (including students) will now be eligible for the new child tax credit being introduced from April 2003. This will make it even easier for lone parents to make the transition from benefits to higher education.

  Student loans are paid in three instalments and are taken into account in income-related benefits for the period they are intended to cover i.e. September to June. The Department for Education and Skills has made arrangements to ensure that students who need financial help in the period before their first loan instalment arrives, can receive a payment from the Access and Hardship Funds held by their university to tide them over. This payment is disregarded in assessing entitlement to income-related benefits.
  1Further and higher education arrangements in Scotland may differ from those in England.

  Minimum Wage
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will estimate the impact on the level of benefit payments of setting the minimum wage for young people at(a) £4.17 per hour and (b) £4.87 per hour; [90640]

  (2) if he will estimate the impact on each benefit payable to those in paid employment of a national minimum wage of (a) £4.17 and (b) £4.87 for the next financial year; [90641]

  (3) what estimate he has made of benefit savings which would result from an increase in the national minimum wage from (a) £4.20 to £4.87 and (b) £3.60 to £4.17 in (i) Scotland, (ii) England, (iii) Wales, and (iv) Northern Ireland; [90651]

  (4) if he will estimate the impact on benefit payments in the next financial year of a single minimum wage for all age groups of (a) £4.17 per hour, (b) £4.20 per hour, (c) £4.87, (d) £5 per hour and (e) £5.30 per hour. [90652]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is in the table:

  £

  Change to minimum wage

  Estimated reduction in benefit payments for 2003–041,2,3

  Set at £4.17 per hour for young people

  3,700,000

  Set at £4.87 per hour for young people

  20,000,000

  Set at £4.17 per hour for all age groups

  3,700,000

  Set at £4.87 per hour for all age groups

  68,800,000

  Increase from £4.20 to £4.87 for adults (aged 22+) and £3.60 to £4.17 for young people(aged 19-21)4,5

  In Scotland

  11,400,000

  In England

  78,000,000

  In Wales

  4,300,000

  1005W

  £

  Change to minimum wage

  Estimated reduction in benefit payments for 2003–041,2,3

  Set at £4.20 per hour for all age groups

  3,900,000

  Set at £5.00 per hour for all age groups

  82,000,000

  Set at £5.30 per hour for all age groups

  117,600,000

  1 The benefits included in the savings estimates are Pensioners Credit, Income Support, Jobseekers Allowance, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Rebate. Tax Credits administered by Inland Revenue have not been included.

  2 The model does not estimate changes in employment and therefore the results do not account for any changes that may occur in the supply and demand of labour as a result of changing the national minimum wage.

  3 Estimates cannot be broken down by benefit due to small sample sizes. Estimates are rounded to the nearest £100,000.

  4 The results show the impact of raising the adult minimum wage and the young persons minimum wage simultaneously.

  5 Social Security matters for Northern Ireland are dealt with by the Northern Ireland Office.

  Source:

  Figures are estimated using the DWP's Policy Simulation Model for 2003–04 based on the Family Resources Survey 2000–01

  Prisoners
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps are being taken to ensure that prisoners have immediate access to benefits and services provided by the Department on the point of release. [91369]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Ex-offenders have particular difficulties in returning to the labour market. We also know that those without accommodation or employment are twice as likely to re-offend. In recognition of this we are introducing a number of initiatives to help ex-offenders move into work.

  £3 million has been allocated over three years to the development of Freshstart, launched in October 2001. Freshstart aims to improve the transition from custody to work through improving the links between prisons and jobcentres. It also provides prisoners who have not already secured a job with an appointment for a new jobseeker interview on release, providing direct access to jobs and the new deal, as well as speeding up their claim for jobseeker's allowance. By the end of November 2002, over 23,000 new jobseeker interviews had been booked.

  In July 2002 we launched a pilot scheme to place touch-screen jobpoints in prisons. There are two trials currently running; computer access to the Department's Worktrain site in Durham, Onley, Askham Grange and Moorland prisons; and jobpoints in Lewes, Swansea, Hollesley Bay and Featherstone prisons.
  1006W
  We are also currently developing an Employment and Benefit Surgeries in Prisons project to meet the recommendations made in the Home Office Social Exclusion Unit report "Reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners". We aim to start national roll out later in 2003. The project will offer all prisoners aged 18 and over one-to-one guidance on access to the full range of benefits and services offered by the Department. Typically this will cover:
  Job search activity
  Training and education opportunities
  Support programmes such as new deal and progress2workLinkUp
  Procedures to follow and steps to take in making a claim to benefit

  This new work will build upon and complement existing provision for ex-offenders.

  We have also developed a number of pilot programmes called Progress2work-LinkUP which focus on providing support for those at greatest disadvantage within the labour market, including ex-offenders. This initiative extends existing provision to tackle the issues that represent significant barriers to employment. The pilots support people by:
  providing specialist advice away from the normal New Deal and other mainstream measures and
  offering access and referral to appropriate specialists

  Nine pilots were launched in autumn 2002 in Avon and Somerset, Merseyside and Metropolitan and West Yorkshire. Up to 10 further pilots are planned for 2003–04 focusing on the Greater Manchester, Lancashire, Nottinghamshire, West Midlands and Thames Valley areas.

  Private Pension Annuities
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what representations he has received about allowing people with an occupational pension as well as a private pension not to have to purchase an annuity for their private pension; and if he will make a statement. [94051]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am not aware of any such representations.

  On 17 December 2002, the Government published, for consultation, simplification proposals for the pensions tax rules. The consultation paper, "Simplifying the Taxation of Pensions: Increasing Choice and Flexibility", is available in the House of Commons Library. The consultation is to allow people the opportunity to put forward their views before final decisions are taken.

HEALTH

  Ambulance Service (East Riding)
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many fully operational ambulances were stationed at each of the ambulance stations in the East Riding of Yorkshire in each year since 1997. [92904]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Ambulance cover in the East Riding 1997–2002

  Station

  Number of vehicles

  Day cover

  Night cover

  Withernsea

  1

  1 crew

  1 crew

  Hornsea

  1

  1 crew

  1 crew

  Bridlington

  3

  3 crews

  1 crew

  Driffield

  1

  1 crew

  1 crew

  Pocklington

  2

  2 crews

  1 crew

  Brough

  2

  2 crews

  1 crew

  Beverley

  2

  2 crews

  1 crew

  Goole

  3

  3 crews

  2 crews

  Total number of vehicles

  15

  Source:

  Tees, East and North Yorkshire Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by postcode area in Haltemprice and Howden the response times for ambulances reacting to(a) Category A and (b) Category B calls, excluding the response times of first responder vehicles, in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [92905]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Population Statistics (East Riding)
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate how many children whose third birthday fell between 1 September 2002 and 31 December 2002 migrated into the East Riding of Yorkshire authority in each month since 1 April 2001. [93840]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  1008W
  Letter from L. Cook to Mr. David Davis, dated 30 January 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your question on the migration of children to the East Riding of Yorkshire authority whose third birthday fell between 1 September 2002 and 31 December 2002. (93840)
  The attached table shows the number of children born between 1 September 1999 and 31 December 1999 who moved into the East Riding Health Authority from other areas of the UK. The figures are shown by month from April 2001 to March 2002 and exclude any children who migrated from countries outside the UK. It should be noted that these statistics are subject to revision in light of the 2001 Census results.
  Information for April 2002 onwards is not yet available; data for April to June 2002 will be available in March 2003, with data for the third and fourth quarters of 2002 becoming available in June and September 2003 respectively.
  These estimates of internal migration have been taken from data provided to the Migration Statistics Unit at the Office for National Statistics by the National Health Service Central Register (NHSCR). The NHSCR is notified when a patient in England and Wales transfers to a new NHS doctor in a different health authority, or health board in Scotland or Northern Ireland.

  Migrant moves of children born between 1 September and

  31 December. 1999 into the East Riding Health Authority—moves

  taking place by month since 1st April, 2001

  numbers

  Year

  Month

  Number of Migrants

  2001

  April

  8

  May

  11

  June

  9

  July

  8

  August

  18

  September

  8

  October

  4

  November

  5

  December

  8

  2002

  January

  2

  February

  4

  March

  8

  Total

  93

  These statistics are subject to revision in light of the 2001 Census results.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 11 December 2002 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. and Mrs. A Wild; [92525]

  (2) why he has not replied to the letter to him dated 11 December 2002 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Mr. A. Wild. [94693]

  Mr. Milburn
  A reply was sent to the right hon. Member on 29 January 2003.

  CT Scanner (Blackpool)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the steps that need to be taken before an additional CT scanner can be installed at the Blackpool Victoria Hospital. [93374]

  Jacqui Smith
  Before any computed tomography (CT) scanner can be installed in the national health service, European Union legislation requires that a
  1009W
  formal procurement process must be undertaken. This consists of an advert in the Official Journal of the European Community, followed by an evaluation of interested suppliers and an invitation to offer via tender. Once contracts have been signed, the successful supplier will agree a suitable delivery date with the NHS trust concerned.

  Blackpool, Fylde and Wyre NHS trust has made a bid for central funding from the Department of Health to allow the capital purchase of an additional CT scanner, as part of the NHS Cancer Plan programme. The final stages of a consultation process with strategic health authorities, cancer networks and local commissioners will shortly confirm whether the trust has been successful in securing such funding.

  Dental Services (East Lincolnshire)
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dental practices are taking on new NHS patients in the constituencies of(a) Cleethorpes, (b) Grimsby, (c) Scunthorpe, (d) Brigg and Goole, (e) Hull West and Hessle, (f) Hull East, (g) Hull North, (h) Haltemprice and Howden, (i) Gainsborough and (j) Louth and Horncastle. [93311]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Constituency

  Practices accepting new patients

  Cleethorpes

  8

  Grimsby

  7

  Scunthorpe

  7

  Brigg and Goole

  4

  Hull West and Hessle

  9

  Hull East

  5

  Hull North

  4

  Haltemprice and Howden

  3

  Gainsborough

  3

  Louth and Horncastle

  4

  Notes:

  1. General Dental Service: dental practices accepting new patients, November 2002.

  2. These numbers are estimated using information from expenditure claims made to the Dental Practice Board (DPB).

  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists have retired in the past year in the constituencies of(a) Cleethorpes and (b) Grimsby. [93312]

  Jacqui Smith
  No dentists from the constituencies of Cleethorpes and Grimsby retired during 2002.Source:
  Dental Practice Board

  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new dental practices taking NHS patients have opened in the constituencies of(a) Cleethorpes and (b) Grimsby since 1 January 2002. [93313]

  Jacqui Smith
  Since 1 January 2002, no new dental practices have opened in the Cleethorpes or Grimsby constituencies.
  1010W
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with North East Lincolnshire Primary Care Trust about the provision of NHS dental treatment in(a) Grimsby and (b) Cleethorpes constituencies. [93340]

  Jacqui Smith
  Responsibility for National Health Service dental care in Grimsby and Cleethorpes is the responsibility of North East Lincolnshire Primary Care Trust. The consultant in dental public health at the North East Primary Care Trust has been discussing access to NHS dentistry in North East Lincolnshire with officials at the Department of Health.

  Public Health Laboratory Service
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the reference to 'key staff meltdown', experienced in PHLS in the report to the Steering Group of the HPA. [90056]

  Ms Blears
  Records of staff turnover are not held centrally. However, information from each of the component organisations indicate that there have been no dramatic increases in the overall number of staff resignations.

  The Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) has indicated that there are above average resignations in a small number of management posts, potentially directly affected by the proposed changes. The Department will be working with the PHLS board to address any business continuity issues that may arise as a consequence.

  Hull and East Riding Hospitals
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been allocated to each of the Hull and East Riding hospitals for ward environment budgets each year since 1 October 2000; how much was spent in each year; and for what other purposes was the money used. [89316]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 9 January 2003]: Ward environment budgets are provided to be spent at the discretion of the charge nurse or ward sister. The purpose of these funds are to cater for items such as decoration, furniture and carpets to help improve the facilities for patients. Expenditure relating to ward environment budgets for the Hull and East Yorkshire National Health Service Hospitals Trust is summarised as follows:
  In 2000–01, the trust received £185,000 from the Department. This amount was allocated to ward staff and £177,000 was spent by them.
  In 2001–02, no specific allocation was received by local primary care trusts or hospitals. However the trust allocated an additional £59,000 to its ward environment budget.
  In 2002–03, no specific allocation was received by local primary care trusts or hospitals. However the trust allocated an additional £227,000 to its ward environment budget.

  Neurological Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the transitional issues between child and adult and adult and older people's neurological services will be handled within the national service framework for long-term medical conditions. [93481]
  1011W
  Jacqui Smith
  The national service framework (NSF) for long-term medical conditions will focus on services and support for adults, but will consider the handling of transitional issues with children's and older people's services in its working groups.
  This could include building on existing NSF standards, National Institute for Clinical Excellence clinical guidance and making links with other strategies and policies both within the Department and across Government.

  Congenital Anomalies
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the incidence of osteoglophonic dysplasia per thousand live births was(a) nationally, (b) in Solihull and (c) in the south of Solihull in each of the last three decades; [93856]

  (2) how many cases of osteoglophonic dysplasia were recorded (a) in the United Kingdom, (b) in Solihull and (c) in the south of Solihull in each of the last three decades. [93855]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from L. Cook to Mrs. Caroline Spelman, dated 30 January 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent questions asking for the incidence number and rate for osteoglophonic dysplasia reported nationally, in Solihull and in the south of Solihull in each of the last three decades. (93855, 93856)
  The National Congenital Anomaly System (NCAS), based at the Office for National Statistics (ONS), codes all anomalies using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Between 1968 and 1988, using the 8th and 9th revisions of ICD, osteoglophonic dysplasia was assigned to a code that also included a number of other anomalies of the skull and face bones. Therefore it is not possible to identify number of babies born with osteoglophonic dysplasia prior to 1988. However from 1989, notifications held on NCAS contained descriptive text of the anomalies present. It is therefore possible to identify cases of osteoglophonic dysplasia from 1989. With the introduction of the 10th revision of ICD in 1995, osteoglophonic dysplasia has been separately coded.
  Prior to 1995, ONS collected all notifications of congenital anomalies that were identified within ten days of birth. From 1995, ONS has collected all notifications of congenital anomalies whenever they are identified.
  The attached table shows the number of babies in England and Wales notified to the National Congenital Anomaly System with osteoglophonic dysplasia and rate per 10,000 live births for the years 1989 to 2001. During this period there was only one case of osteoglophonic dysplasia reported to the NCAS in Solihull health authority in 1994. Figures from NCAS are not routinely published below health authority level.

  Live born babies notified to the National Congenital Anomaly

  System with osteoglophonic dysplasia1. England and Wales,

  numbers and rates per 10000 live births

  Numbers

  Rate per 10000 live births

  1989

  2

  0.03

  1990

  3

  0.04

  1991

  1

  0.01

  1992

  2

  0.03

  1993

  0

  —

  1994

  0

  —

  1012W

  Live born babies notified to the National Congenital Anomaly

  System with osteoglophonic dysplasia1. England and Wales,

  numbers and rates per 10000 live births

  Numbers

  Rate per 10000 live births

  1995

  2

  0.03

  1996

  1

  0.02

  1997

  1

  0.02

  1998

  7

  0.03

  1999

  0

  —

  2000

  1

  0.02

  2001

  0

  —

  1During 1989–1994, under the 9th revision of the International Classification of Diseases, cases coded as 756.0 were searched for the term osteoglophonic dysplasia or its synonyms craniofacial dysostosis and Crouzon's disease.

  During 1995–2001, under the 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases, any cases with code Q75.1 were selected.

  Source:

  National Congenital Anomaly System @ 28 January 2003

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the incidence of severe hypoplastic left heart syndrome per thousand live births was(a) in the United Kingdom, (b) in Solihull and (c) in the south of Solihull in each of the last three decades; [93854]

  (2) how many cases of severe hypoplastic left heart syndrome were recorded (a) in the United Kingdom, (b) in Solihull and (c) in the south of Solihull in each of the last three decades. [93853]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from L. Cook to Mrs. Caroline Spelman, dated 30 January 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent questions asking for the incidence number and rate (per thousand live births) of severe hypoplastic left heart syndrome reported nationally, in Solihull and in the south of Solihull in each of the last three decades. (93854, 93853)
  The National Congenital Anomaly System (NCAS), based at Office for National Statistics (ONS), codes all anomalies using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Between 1968 and 1978, when the 8th revision of ICD was used, hypoplastic left heart syndrome was assigned to a code that also includes a number of other specific anomalies of the heart. Therefore it is not possible to identify number of babies born with hypoplastic left heart syndrome prior to 1979.
  Since the introduction of the 9th revision of ICD in 1979, hypoplastic left heart syndrome has been separately coded. It is therefore possible to provide the information requested from 1979 onwards. Prior to 1995, ONS collected all notifications of congenital anomalies that were identified within ten days of birth. From 1995, ONS has collected all notifications of congenital anomalies whenever they are identified.
  The attached table shows the number of babies in England and Wales notified to the National Congenital Anomaly System with hypoplastic left heart syndrome and rate per 1,000 live births for the years 1979 to 2001. During this period there was only one case of hypoplastic left heart syndrome reported to NCAS in Solihull health authority in 1999. Figures from NCAS are not routinely published below health authority level.
  1013W

  Live born babies notified to the National Congenital Anomaly

  System with hypoplastic left heart syndrome1, England and Wales,

  numbers and rates per 1000 live births

  Numbers

  Rate per 1000 live births

  1979

  6

  0.01

  1980

  10

  0.02

  1981

  8

  0.01

  1982

  13

  0.02

  1983

  18

  0.03

  1984

  20

  0.03

  1985

  24

  0.04

  1986

  16

  0.02

  1987

  18

  0.03

  1988

  9

  0.01

  1989

  24

  0.03

  1990

  13

  0.02

  1991

  10

  0.01

  1992

  13

  0.02

  1993

  8

  0.01

  1994

  26

  0.04

  1995

  16

  0.02

  1996

  28

  0.04

  1997

  32

  0.05

  1998

  18

  0.03

  1999

  33

  0.05

  2000

  39

  0.06

  2001

  33

  0.06

  1Hypoplastic left heart syndrome is coded as:

  1979–199 9th revision of the International Classification of Diseases—code 746.7

  1995–200 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases—code Q23.4

  Source:

  National Congenital Anomaly System @ 28 January 2003

  Parkinson's Disease
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive about reducing waiting times to see a consultant about Parkinson's Disease. [94019]

  Jacqui Smith
  Ministers have had no discussions with the Scottish Executive on this subject.

  The national service framework (NSF) for long-term conditions will have a particular focus on the needs of people with neurological disease, brain and spinal injury, as well as some of the common issues faced by people with a long-term condition. It will include services for people with epilepsy, Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson's Disease, Motor Neurone Disease and other similar conditions.

  Publication of the NSF is currently planned for 2004, with implementation starting in 2005.

  Protection of Children Act
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what actions he has taken to inform voluntary organisations of the scope of the Protection of Children Act 1999. [93394]

  Jacqui Smith
  Guidance on the Protection of Children Act 1999 was published in September 2000 and distributed to a large range of statutory and voluntary child care organisations. The guidance continues to be made available and is published on the Department of Health website for easy access.

  Hospital Waiting Lists/Times
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the Lancashire Teaching Hospitals Trust area were waiting for in-patient treatment on the latest available date. [92067]

  Jacqui Smith
  As at 10 January 2003, the number of patients waiting for in-patient and day case treatment at the Lancashire Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Trust was 9,322.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people waited 13 weeks or more for an outpatient appointment in Hull and the East Riding in each of the last three quarters for which figures are available. [92912]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Waiting times for first out-patient appointment, NHS trusts and

  PCTs within North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire

  StHA area—provider based—number of GP written referral

  requests seen during the quarter who waited 13 weeks or more

  Code

  Name

  March 2002

  June 2002

  Sept 2002

  RWA

  Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  5,727

  3,950

  4,634

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Council what representations he has received about bringing forward proposals for making the rise of the House the time for the shuffle for oral questions; and if he will make a statement. [94583]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I have only received one such representation, and that was from my hon. Friend. I have no plans to change the time for the shuffle.

  Service Delivery Agreement
  Tony Wright
  To ask the President of the Council when the Privy Council Office's service delivery agreement for 2003 to 2006 will be published. [94209]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Privy Council Office is not required to have a service delivery agreement.

  A new business plan is, however, being prepared, and will be published on the Privy Council Office website (www.privycouncil.gov.uk) later this year. The plan will include our main performance targets, and when it is published, I will write to my hon. Friend to let him know.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to expand the use of Arms Length Management Organisations. [93831]
  1015W
  Mr. McNulty
  Arms Length Management Organisations (ALMOs) for local authority housing are one of the Government's key options for improving service delivery for tenants and achieving the decent homes target. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's commitment to ALMOs is set to continue and we will be announcing the level of resources available for the next three years of the programme shortly.

  Business Co-ordination Unit
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many staff work for the Business Co-ordination Unit; how many worked for the unit in each year since it was formed; and what the running costs of the unit are in 2002–03. [92576]

  Mr. Leslie
  There are currently three staff employed in the Business Co-ordination Unit, with two vacant posts. In 2000 when the unit was set up there were four members of staff, this increased to five in April 2002. The running costs budget for the unit in 2002–03 is £300,000.

  Deprivation Indices
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to ensure that the calculation of deprivation indices take account of local crime rates. [94521]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently engaged in a project to consider options for updating the Indices of Deprivation 2000 (ID 2000). As part of this project, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is investigating the potential for constructing a Crime and Social Order domain, which would measure the deprivation people face as a result of crime or as a result of living in an area with high rates of crime and social disorder. Discussions are currently taking place with officials in the Home Office over the scope, availability and quality of data.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has always recognised that it would be important to include a crime/ social order domain in the ID 2000 but were previously prevented from doing so because of a lack of robust data.

  Development Grants
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the projected total sum is in the United Kingdom of the(a) approved development programme and (b) Challenge Fund for (i) 2002–03, (ii) 2003–04 and (iii) 2004–05. [94414]

  Mr. McNulty
  In 2002–03 the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme (ADP) in England is £921 million. There is no Challenge Fund for this year. The funding for 2003–04, announced on 18 September, is £1,286 million of which £200 million is for the Challenge Fund.

  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be making a statement shortly about how the additional funding in the 2002 Spending Review will be used; it will include figures for 2004–05.

  The ADP and Challenge Fund operate in England only.
  1016W
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the proposed allocation within the regions of the UK is of the(a) Challenge Fund and (b) approved development programme for (i) 2002–03, (ii) 2003–04 and (iii) 2004–05. [94415]

  Mr. McNulty
  The published allocation between regions of the Housing Corporation's approved development programme in England for 2002–03 and 2003–04 is tabled as follows:

  £million

  Region

  2002–03 Actual

  2003–04 Indicative

  London

  420.4

  482.0

  South East

  113.9

  134.1

  South West

  61.8

  74.3

  East Midlands

  40.5

  48.3

  East of England

  63.8

  74.1

  West Midlands

  64.6

  79.3

  Yorks and Humberside

  49.3

  59.7

  North East

  22.9

  33.8

  North West

  57.7

  69.0

  Merseyside

  25.4

  30.4

  HQ

  1.0

  1.0

  Challenge Fund

  n/a

  200.0

  Total

  921.2

  1,286.2

  The ADP and Challenge Fund operate in England only.

  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be making a statement shortly about how the additional funding in the 2002 Spending Review will be used; it will include figures for 2004–05.

  The allocation of Challenge Fund bids between regions is tabled as follows:

  £million

  London

  109.6

  South East

  84.0

  East of England

  6.4

  These allocations by the Housing Corporation are provisional and subject to confirmation of costs and timing.

  Electronic Government
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he intends to introduce an e-participation component as a requirement of Implementing Electronic Government statements. [93865]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently considering the format of the third round of Implementing Electronic Government (IEG3) Statements. It is probable that we will be asking councils to provide information on specific components of the local e-government programme. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is also in the process of developing a proposal for a National Project on e-participation. If this project is approved a return in this area in the IEG3 statements could be included.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister hopes to publish draft guidelines on IEG3 before Easter and the final guidance in June.

  House Condition Survey
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will publish the results of the 2001 English House Condition Survey. [93830]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on 20 January 2003,Official Report, column 165W.

  Affordable Housing (South-West)
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the aims are of the long-term housing allocation resource plans; what he estimates the effect will be on the division of resources for low-cost affordable housing within the South West Region; and if he will make a statement. [94413]

  Mr. McNulty
  In his statement to the house about sustainable communities on 18 July 2002,Official Report, column 438, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister promised to return to the house with a comprehensive long term programme of action to achieve a step change in the Government's policies for building successful, thriving and inclusive communities in all regions. The statement, which will be made shortly, will set out how the additional funding announced in the 2002 spending review will be used. It will cover the provision of affordable housing in areas of shortage.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what consultations have been carried out in determining the objective data from which the Government has derived the high demand indicator for the purposes of reducing maximum right to buy discounts. [93993]

  Mr. McNulty
  None. Two measures were used: homelessness and house prices. The sources of the homelessness data were statistical surveys of local authority housing departments, routinely conducted by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister:2001–02 Housing Investment Programme Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix
  Quarterly Housing Activity Return (PIE).
  House prices were obtained from the Land Registry and can reasonably be assumed to reflect market prices since sales below market value were excluded.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the evidence he has collated that the Right to Buy has been abused in the borough of Christchurch. [93994]

  Mr. McNulty
  The report of the research by Heriot-Watt University into the scale, nature and impact of exploitation of the Right to Buy policy will be published shortly. It did not find any exploitation in the borough of Christchurch, but the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is minded to reduce the maximum Right to Buy discount in this area because it is under great housing pressure as evidenced by a high local incidence of homelessness and high local house prices.
  1018W
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will extend beyond 5 February the deadline for responses from Christchurch Borough Council to his letter about right to buy discounts. [94441]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister wrote on 22 January 2003 to all the local authorities affected by our announcement that day on Right to Buy discounts, giving them the opportunity to present a case for their areas to be excluded. All views and comments on the announcement received on or before 5 February 2003 will be given careful consideration.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the letters about reduction of right to buy discounts were despatched to(a) Christchurch Borough Council and (b) Twynham Housing Association. [94442]

  Mr. McNulty
  Letters informing Christchurch Borough Council and Twynham Housing Association of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement about reducing right to buy discounts, and seeking their views, were despatched during the afternoon of Wednesday 22 January 2003.

  Housing Stock Transfers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects to receive the National Audit Office report on council stock transfers; and whether his review of council housing finances will be published before he has received the report. [93327]

  Mr. McNulty
  The timetable for the National Audit Office's report has yet to be finalised. However it is scheduled for consideration by the Public Accounts Committee of this House on 31 March.

  The statement by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on the Government's comprehensive long term programme for sustainable communities, including housing, will be made shortly.

  Housing Corporation
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the annual Government funding to the Housing Corporation was in each year since 1991–92; what the projected annual Government funding for the Housing Corporation is for(a) 2002–03, (b) 2003–04 and (c) 2004–05; and what has been and will be the allocation of these moneys for these years for the South West Region. [94416]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Housing Corporation's total approved development programme (ADP) outturn for each year since 1991–92 is tabled as follows:

  £million

  ADP

  Of which South West ADP

  Outturn

  1991–92

  1,586

  —

  1992–93

  2,350

  —

  1993–94

  1,809

  —

  1994–95

  1,483

  —

  1995–96

  1,142

  81.4

  1996–97

  1,044

  76.9

  1997–98

  684

  48.4

  1998–99

  606

  40.8

  1019W

  £million

  ADP

  Of which South West ADP

  1999–2000

  638

  42.3

  2000–01

  717

  48.3

  2001–02

  775

  51.1

  Forecast

  2002–03

  921

  61.8

  Planned

  2003–04

  1,286

  74.3

  Notes:

  1. These figures exclude expenditure on all Housing Corporation revenue programme and administration and other capital programmes including Rough leepers Initiative, Major Repairs Initiative, Estate Renewal Challenge Fund.

  2. Figures for South West Region prior to 1995–96 are not available. Prior to this date the South West region was not a separate entity within the Housing Corporation regional structure.

  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be making a statement shortly about how the additional funding in the 2002 Spending Review will be used; it will include figures for 2004–05.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will(a) list and (b) quantify those factors in the local government finance formula which determined the increase proposed for (i) Berwick-on-Tweed Borough and (ii) Teesdale District. [93263]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Berwick-on-Tweed received an increase of 5.6 per cent. in Formula Spending Share (FSS) in the provisional settlement compared to 2002–03, to £135 per head. For Teesdale, these figures were 15.6 per cent. and £136 respectively. After their ability to raise council tax is taken into account, this gives grant increases for Berwick of 3 per cent. (the floor) and Teesdale 12.5 per cent. (the ceiling).

  Many indicators have been removed, replaced, or updated in the EPCS Formula Review, and it is difficult to quantify every impact of the formula changes on each district.

  Teesdale gains significantly and Berwick loses from the formula no longer taking account of overnight visitors. Both districts lose FSS from the removal of the old housing deprivation indictors (less so for Teesdale) and the lower sparsity weighting. Teesdale gains from the lower weighting for numbers on income support, but loses slightly due to an estimated population decline after the 2001 Census.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many representations he has received from(a) individuals and (b) organisations in (i) East Sussex and (ii) Eastbourne relating to changes to grant distribution. [93495]

  Mr. Leslie
  The number of representations we have received since the Government published the consultation paper on the Formula Grant Review on 8 July 2002, is tabled as follows.
  1020W

  Formal response to the Formula Grant Review

  Formal response to the provisional local government finance settlement 2003–04

  Other

  Organisation

  East Sussex County Council

  2

  2

  —

  Eastbourne Borough Council

  1

  —

  —

  Hastings Borough Council

  1

  1

  —

  Lewes District Council

  1

  —

  —

  Bother Borough Council

  —

  1

  —

  Wealden Borough Council

  1

  —

  —

  East Sussex Fire Brigade

  1

  —

  —

  Sussex Police Authority

  1

  1

  —

  Individual

  From MPs on behalf of East Sussex

  24

  4

  14

  From MPs on behalf of Eastbourne

  —

  —

  2

  From members of public in East Sussex

  —

  —

  76

  From members of public in Eastbourne

  —

  —

  9

  In addition a number of letters were received from schools in the above area concerning the funding of education which were passed to the Department for Education and Skills for reply.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list by local authority the funding per head of population for social services departments under the terms of the provisional settlement for 2003–04. [93975]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A table showing the Personal Social Services Formula Spending Share (PSS FSS), the mid-2001 population estimate and the PSS FSS per head by local authority has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The FSS amounts are not cash. Instead they are used in the distribution of formula grant to local authorities. Formula grant is unhypothecated. FSSs are not spending targets, authorities are free to set their own budgets subject to local spending priorities.

  Public Toilets
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will issue guidelines to local authorities on the closure of public lavatories; and if he will commission research into the change in the number of public lavatories over the last five years. [93695]

  Mr. Leslie
  Local authorities are free to determine the provision of public toilets according to local circumstances. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans to introduce guidelines on the closure of public toilets or commission research on their provision.

  Ordnance Survey
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the Ordnance Survey's service delivery agreement for 2003 to 2006 will be published. [94111]

  Mr. McNulty
  Ordnance Survey is a small non-ministerial Department and Executive Agency which operates as a Trading Fund. As such a service delivery
  1021W
  agreement is no longer considered appropriate and there is no plan to publish another one. Agency Performance Targets are set by Ministers for each financial year and achievement against these targets is monitored regularly.

  Travellers (Permanent Sites)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what financial assistance will be given to local authorities for the remaining two months of the current financial year to establish permanent sites for travellers; what plans he has to continue such financial provision in the next financial year; and if he will make a statement. [93108]

  Mr. McNulty
  The gipsy sites refurbishment grant is a three-year programme announced in July 2000 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) (the then Minister of Housing). As part of the Spending Review 2000, that £17 million grant was to be made available to local authorities for the refurbishment of authorised gipsy sites over the three year period 2001 to 2004.

  The grant funding is approved and allocated annually for works to be carried out throughout the financial year. A total of £8.112 million was approved for the 2002–03 round of the gipsy site refurbishment grant. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will pay a maximum of 75 per cent. of the total approved costs.

  Applications for the 2003–04 round of the have were submitted on the 13 January 2003 and is now being assessed. Results are expected in mid March 2003.

EDUCATION

  Access Regulator
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the(a) annual budget and (b) powers of the proposed Access Regulator for higher education institutions will be; and if he will make a statement. [93747]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 29 January 2003]: The Access Regulator will work within the Higher Education Funding Council, as set out in "The Future of Higher Education" (Cm 5734), and will have the power to withdraw approval for variable fees, or impose financial penalties, where Access Agreements are not fulfilled.

  Arts and Humanities Research Council
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his estimate is of the(a) cost and (b) annual budget of the Arts and Humanities Research Council; and if he will make a statement. [93746]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 29 January 2003]: We announced in "The Future of Higher Education" that our aim is for the Arts and Humanities Research Board (AHRB) to become a full Research Council by 2005. Our estimate for AHRB expenditure on running costs in the current financial year is £3.4 million. Total support for the AHRB from the Government and the Devolved Administrations in 2002–03 will be £63.2 million.

  School Bullying
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what requirement schools are under to record reported incidents of bullying. [93589]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  There is no statutory requirement to keep record of such incidents, although this is good practice.

  Rather than set new legal requirements, we want to help schools stop bullying. We have made available on request our free pack and video for schools entitled "Bullying: Don't Suffer in Silence". In addition, Ofsted inspectors ask about the incidence of bullying in the schools they inspect, and the school's response to the bullying.

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to collect centrally statistics on the rate of bullying in schools. [93590]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We have no such plans.

  However, we take bullying very seriously, and I would urge schools that do not have it to obtain a copy of the Department's free anti-bullying pack, "Bullying: Don't Suffer in Silence".

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much Government expenditure was directed towards reducing the rate of bullying in schools in each of the last three years. [93591]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  In England, we provided over £600 million to schools and local education authorities between 1999–2000 and 2001–02 to raise behaviour standards. It is not known how much was used for anti-bullying work, as expenditure decisions were taken locally. We have also funded the Department's anti-bullying pack, published in December 2000. In addition, we are providing around £190,000 a year towards the Parentline Plus helpline for parents of pupils who have been bullied, and we are also funding anti-bullying research by ChildLine—£120,000 in total, including a conference—and an external evaluation of the usefulness of our anti-bullying pack to schools that have ordered it. The evaluation will enable us to review, and where appropriate, enhance the effectiveness of our support to schools in reducing bullying. The cost of the evaluation is £20,000.

  Local Government Association
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when(a) he and (b) his predecessor last met representatives of the Local Government Association's Education Executive; and when he next expects to meet them. [89368]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I regularly meet with members of the LGA.

  Schools (Counselling)
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance is provided for head teachers and governors on counselling in schools. [93120]
  1023W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department provides guidance to schools and LEAs on the subject of counselling in the event of sudden death, serious incidents, or emergencies during educational visits. Our pack for schools, "Bullying: Don't Suffer in Silence", also deals with counselling as an anti-bullying strategy.

  Schools (Formula-funded Allocations)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list for each local education authority in England the amount of formula-funded allocations per pupil for(a) primary and (b) secondary education in the provisional settlement for 2003–04. [93976]

  Mr. Miliband
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) on 8 January 2003,Official Report, columns 231–33W.

  Technical Craft Skills
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action he is taking to increase the provision of technical craft skills training for(a) plumbing, (b) mechanics, (c) construction and (d) joinery. [92780]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We are already doing much to improve the quality and availability of provision and the direct partnership between employers and the education and training system. By June we will have set out our national skills strategy and delivery plan setting out how we will further boost numbers of young people acquiring technical and craft skills across the economy and how we can get more adults to acquire vocational skills and qualifications.

  I have set out as follows some examples of the important work already in train:
  We have begun to make a start through our Success for All Strategy in bringing employers and training providers closer together to ensure that skills priorities and shortages are addressed. From August, colleges will be expected to agree three year development plans with their local Learning and Skills Council (LSC). This will ensure that funding is allocated on the basis of each college meeting headline targets, including targets for employer engagement. The targets will be specific to the role each college will play in responding to local skill needs and for many, these will clearly link to reducing skills shortages and gaps in their area.
  The Learning and Skills Council is engaged in substantial adult skills pilots in each of the occupational areas mentioned. These pilots are nationally managed and locally delivered through a consortium of local LSCs, the development-phase Sector Skills Councils, employers and providers. The pilots are proving highly successful in identifying and overcoming barriers to employer-led training programmes, and when mainstreamed will enable large numbers of adults to train or re-train for technician skills which are currently in very high demand. The Council offers substantial support for adult trainees through its heavy subsidies (of between 50 per cent. and 75 per cent. of full cost) towards college and other provider fees. In all the Council provides several hundred million pounds of subsidy towards the training of technicians every year, and provides progression routes to high level skills and HE.
  A new Standards Unit has also been established within my Department to focus specifically on improving the quality of teaching and learning. The Unit will concentrate on developing best practice materials in up to four curriculum areas in the
  1024W
  spring and summer terms of 2002–03. Construction, which includes plumbing and joinery, has been identified as one of these priority areas.
  We are currently setting up, through the new Sector Skills Development Agency, a network of Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) that will bring together employers, trade unions and professional bodies to work with government to meet the skills needs of their sector. SSCs covering plumbing, mechanics and construction (which includes joinery) sectors are in development phase.
  We are wholly committed to Modern Apprenticeships (MA) as a quality work-based learning route for young people, increasing the supply of skills at craft, supervisory and technician level across industry. We have adopted a challenging target for MA entrants by 2004—28 per cent. of young people to begin an MA by the age of 22—and are working with the LSC to ensure all MAs meet the highest standards and to encourage take-up among employers and young people. A new Modern Apprenticeship Task Force will take a key role in promoting MA to employers and thereby contributing to increased take-up. Provisional figures for 2002–03 show that the number of young people engaged in Foundation Modern Apprenticeships in construction (which includes joinery) and plumbing has increased dramatically.
  Our national skills strategy and delivery plan will set out how Government Departments, the Learning and Skills Council, Sector Skills Councils, Regional Development Agencies and other agencies will work even further together to deliver the economy's skill needs.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Justice Administration (Kent)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department(1) if she will make a statement on the proposals to create three benches of nearly 300 magistrates in Kent; [93456]

  (2) what consultations took place prior to the proposals to reorganise the administration of justice in Kent; and if she will make a statement; [93455]

  (3) what assessment she has made of (a) travel distances and (b) costs for court users of the proposals to reorganise the administration of justice in Kent. [93457]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information is as follows.

  1. By statute, the organisation of magistrates courts is a matter for the local magistrates courts committee, in this case, the Kent magistrates courts committee

  2. The Kent magistrates courts committee issued consultation documents on their proposals to reorganise the administration of justice, in February 2001, April 2002, and December 2002. If any proposals are pursued, a further period of consultation will take place.

  3. It is for the Kent magistrates courts committee to assess the travelling distances and costs for court users of their proposals. The Lord Chancellor is not required to make any such assessment on the proposals at this stage, but will take into account any objections to these proposals before making a decision on whether to approve the draft order for reorganisation.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment she has made of the financial implications of the recent proposals to reorganise the administration of justice in Kent. [93458]
  1025W
  Yvette Cooper
  By statute, the organisation of magistrates courts is a matter for the local magistrates courts committee. The Lord Chancellor is not required to make any such assessment. Kent magistrates courts committee has addressed the financial implications of their proposals in their consultation document entitled "2004 and Beyond" which was published to stakeholders in February 2001. The purpose of the reorganisation is to achieve more efficient utilisation of courtrooms in Kent.

PRIME MINISTER

  Asylum Induction Centre
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 22 January 2003 to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith),Official Report, column 294, what the correct consultation procedures are for the establishment of an asylum induction centre; and where they are published. [94508]

  The Prime Minister
  Procurement exercises undertaken by NASS are carried out in accordance with standard procurement procedures, which should include consultation with local authorities. However, we are undertaking a full, independent review of NASS operations and business procedures, including procurement processes, in order to ensure that full consultation with local communities takes place consistent with the need to preserve commercial confidences.

  Gun Crime
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 22 January 2003 to the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban),Official Report, column 299, if he will make a statement on the reasons for the increase in gun crime since 1997; and in which areas there is a culture of gun crime. [94510]

  The Prime Minister
  Armed crime accounts for a very small proportion of overall crime offences. However, the Government are determined to tackle the problem of gun crime. We have therefore announced our intention to bring forward a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for illegal possession of a firearm. New measures to tighten up the law on airguns and replica firearms will be included in the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill. Individual police forces have also introduced targeted initiatives for tackling gun crime, such as operations Trident in London and Ventara in Birmingham.

  Port Controls
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 22 January 2003 to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith),Official Report, column 295, what the evidential basis is for his statement that the Government has put juxtaposed controls across all ports; and what kind of controls are in place for ports on the Isle of Wight. [94507]

  The Prime Minister
  This Government introduced three formal juxtaposed frontier controls in France, to cover Eurostar services at Paris Gare du Nord, Lille 1026W
  Europe and Calais Frethun stations, in June 2001. These controls have had a dramatic impact on the number of inadequately documented arrivals at Waterloo and Ashford International stations. There had previously been a juxtaposed immigration control at the Eurotunnel site at Coquelles.

  The establishment of juxtaposed controls in Calais and Dover is a priority and was agreed in principle by the Home Secretary and his French counterpart in July 2002. UK Immigration Officers have been working with their French counterparts in an advisory capacity at Calais since August 2002. We will sign a treaty soon to set the legal framework to provide for full immigration controls at Calais and subsequently at other channel ports. We will deploy immigration service resources on a targeted and flexible, intelligence led basis to ports other than Calais to counteract any displacement that may occur.

  UK Immigration Officers operate in a similar capacity in Brussels. We are negotiating with the Belgian Government to introduce a formal juxtaposed immigration control at Gare du Midi in Brussels for Eurostar services to the UK.

  The Immigration Office in Portsmouth deal with all arrivals at the Isle of Wight that require the attention of the Immigration Service.

  Publicity and Advertising
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Prime Minister how much(a) his Department and (b) each agency and non-departmental public body sponsored by his Department spent on (i) publicity and (ii) advertising in each year from 1995–96 to 2000–03 (estimated); and if he will make a statement. [92223]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office today.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Prime Minister what the rate of staff(a) absenteeism and (b) sickness was in his Office in each year from 1990–191 to 2002–03; what the target set is for his Department; and if he will make a statement. [93486]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office today.

  Terrorist Suspects
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 22 January 2003 to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith),Official Report, column 294, what the evidential basis is for his statement that members of the official opposition had said that the measures to detain without trial people suspected of terrorism were illegal and contrary to civil liberties. [94511]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the statements made by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on 19 November, 2001,Official Report.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Mrs Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the guidelines with regard to the protocols for attaching antisocial behaviour orders to criminal proceedings will be made available. [92173]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 29 January 2003]The Crown Prosecution Service is currently preparing guidelines, to be published next month, on the role of prosecutors in prompting orders on conviction. The Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) are working with them on this.

  Arrests
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he gives to the police about the publication of the names of persons arrested but not charged with criminal offences. [93033]

  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office does not issue guidance to the police about the publication of the names of persons arrested but not charged with criminal offences. The Media Advisory Group of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) of England, Wales and Northern Ireland issued guidance in December 2000 on individuals under police investigation which is available on the ACPO website.

  The guidance recommends that generally people under investigation should not be named but can with certain exceptions be identified once they have been charged. The guidance clearly advises that people who are under arrest should not be named, although general details may be given provided they do not identify the suspect.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether persons who fought against British and US troops in Afghanistan have(a) applied for and (b) been granted asylum; and if he will make a statement. [92877]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 23 January 2003]Between 1 January and 30 September 2002 6,910 initial decisions were made on applications made by Afghan nationals. Of these 80 were grants of asylum.

  All applications for asylum are considered on their merits in accordance with our obligations under the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The UK is under no obligation whatsoever to give asylum to those who pose a threat to our security and national interest. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary requested a full examination of grants of asylum to Afghans as a result of recent press speculation. This process is on-going, but absolutely no evidence has so far been uncovered that anybody with a credible claim to have supported and fought for the Taliban has been granted asylum. All claims of links to the Taliban are investigated and security checks are made on those that give cause for concern.
  1028W
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he has introduced in order to improve the effectiveness of vetting asylum seekers for terrorist links.[92840]

  Beverley Hughes
  All asylum seekers are screened, in a three-tier process:The details of all asylum seekers are checked against the Warnings Index system.
  Their fingerprints are taken and checked against existing Home Office record and EURODAC and they are photographed. New asylum seekers are being issued with an Application Registration Card and we have established reporting centres to improve the contact management arrangements.

  The last step, the interview, has different levels of screening which allow for those with acceptable evidence of identity and nationality to be fed into the system while allowing for more in-depth screening interviews for those with little or no credible evidence. Should there be any indication given during any of the process that someone might be of security interest then the information is quickly passed onto the appropriate agencies.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what counties a search is being conducted by his Department or its agencies for(a) accommodation centres and (b) induction centres for asylum seekers; how many premises have been identified as suitable for such purposes; how many offers have been made; how many contracts have been exchanged; how many contracts have been completed of the purchase of such properties; and if he will list the last. [93091]

  Beverley Hughes
  We have submitted planning notifications for accommodation centres at DSDC (Defence Storage Distribution Centre) Bicester and Royal Air Force (RAF) Newton. A shortlist of three further sites remains under consideration. They are: Sully Hospital, Cardiff; AirWest, Edinburgh; Hemswell Cliff, Lincolnshire. Site searching continues, but details of sites will not be put into the public domain unless or until the site is considered to be a serious prospect for the siting of an accommodation centre.

  To date the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) has entered into contracts for the use of hotel beds to support induction processes in Dover and Sittingbourne. NASS is currently considering options for other such accommodation throughout the UK. Details of these sites cannot be released because that information is commercially sensitive.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what mechanism is in place to track the place of residence in the UK of those who have sought asylum. [93204]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 23 January 2003]As part of the initial screening process, asylum-seekers are required to provide proof of residence at a particular address. This address is recorded in their Home Office file and in the databases maintained by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND). Applicants and their representatives are told that they must notify the Home Office of any subsequent change of address, at which point the records are amended. For those subject to a reporting regime, verification of the place of residence is carried out during the reporting event.
  1029W
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Home Office will be placing asylum seekers in Quadrant House in Dunstable, Bedforshire. [93663]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 28 January 2003]There are no current plans to use Quadrant House, Dunstable, Bedfordshire as accommodation for asylum seekers. This should not be taken to mean that the Home Office would not ever consider the property if it was put forward. The property has not been offered to us.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Afghan nationals claiming asylum in Britain have stated that they fought with the Taliban; and how many of these asylum claims have been accepted. [92983]

  Beverley Hughes
  (Between 1 January and 30 September 2002 6,910 initial decisions were made on applications made by Afghan nationals. Of these 80 were grants of asylum).

  All applications for asylum are considered on their merits in accordance with our obligations under the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The UK is under no obligation whatsoever to give asylum to those who pose a threat to our security and national interest. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary requested a full examination of grants of asylum to Afghans as a result of recent press speculation. This process is on-going, but absolutely no evidence has so far been uncovered that anybody with a credible claim to have supported and fought for the Taliban has been granted asylum. All claims of links to the Taliban are investigated and security checks are made on those that give cause for concern.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Court of Appeal last set sentencing guidelines for benefit fraud; and if he will make a statement. [94009]

  Hilary Benn
  The Court of Appeal last issued sentencing guidelines for benefit fraud on 24 March 1987 in the case of Livingstone Stewart.

  Bioterrorism
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration has been made for dealing with domestic pets in drawing up strategies to deal with bio-terrorist attacks. [92524]

  Mr. Blunkett
  In drawing up contingency plans, consideration has been given to the handling of pets following the deliberate release of biological agents, including infectious diseases. The handling of pets would depend very much on the particular circumstances of the incident. Whatever action is necessary, the authorities do their best to take account of the emotional attachment which all pet owners feel towards their animals.

  Crime and Disorder Act
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether section 17 of the Crime and 1030W
  Disorder Act 1998 will apply to (a) the Planning Bill, (b) the Licensing Bill and (c) the Local Government Bill; and if he will make a statement. [93880]

  Mr. Denham
  Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 applies without prejudice to any other obligation imposed on an authority to which it applies. Any new functions proposed under the(a) the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill (b) theLicensing Bill and (c) the Local Government Bill maintains the duty under section 17 for the relevant authority to have due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do all it reasonably can to prevent, crime and disorder in its area.

  Cumbria Crime Squad
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police hours were lost as a result of the inquiry into the Cumbria force crime squad. [94027]

  Mr. Denham
  I am informed by Cumbria Constabulary that one police officer was suspended for a period of seven months from October 2000 to May 2001. This equates to approximately 1,104 working hours. Apart from this all officers under investigation have been assigned non-operational duties within the constabulary.

  Domestic Violence (Merseyside)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of domestic assault have been reported to Merseyside police authority in each year since 1996; how many and what percentage of such cases were withdrawn by(a) the police complainant and (b) the victim complainant before the case was referred to the CPS; how many cases were pursued by the CPS after the victim complainant had withdrawn the complaint; and how many cases were accepted by the CPS where the only complainant was the police complainant.[92174]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 29 January 2003]Domestic violence is not identified separately in recorded crime figures: crimes involving domestic violence are recorded in a range of offences, along with offences committed in other circumstances.

  The British Crime Survey (BCS) produced data by region for 2001–02. For that year it estimated that there were 97 incidents of domestic violence per 10,000 adults in the north west region, compared with 149 incidents per 10,000 adults in England and Wales as a whole; and that 35 per cent. of domestic violence incidents were reported to the police. The BCS does not provide information on domestic violence for individual police force areas.

  The 1996 BCS included a self-completion component on domestic violence to encourage disclosure. Results were published in Home Office Research Study No. 191, copies of which were deposited in the Library.

  Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) case records begin when the police refer a file to the CPS, either for pre-charge advice or for prosecution. CPS records do not,

  1031W
  therefore, show how many cases of domestic assault have been reported to the police, or how many were disposed of before referral to the prosecution.

  The CPS does hold records of case outcomes, but at present these are held in aggregate form, and cannot be provided for particular offences or groups of offences.

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of domestic violence were reported and how many lives domestic violence claimed in(a) the Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside, (c) the north-east and (d) the UK in each year since 1997. [86455]

  Mr. Denham
  Recorded crime figures are generally collected by legal definitions. Recorded crimes involving domestic violence will be recorded in a range of offences, along with offences which have been committed in other circumstances. Numbers of offences involving domestic violence are therefore not available from recorded crime data.

  The British Crime Survey (BCS) produced data by region for 2001–02, on the number of crimes of domestic violence recorded by the survey. However, it does not provide information on domestic violence at a local level nor for individual police force areas.

  The BCS estimates that there were 92 crimes of domestic violence per 10.000 adults in the north-east region for interviews conducted in the 2001–02 financial year. This compares with 149 incidents per 10,000 adults in England and Wales as a whole.

  The BCS can also provide trend information on the number of incidents of domestic violence for England and Wales.

  Number of BCS incidents of domestic violence, 1997 to 2001–02,

  BCS interviews, England and Wales (thousands)

  Domestic Violence

  1997

  826

  1999

  787

  2000

  514

  2001–02

  635

  The BCS figures are estimates only. They are derived from a sample and so are subject to sampling error. Also, the context of the face-to-face BCS interview means the estimates are certain to be underestimates of the true extent because some respondents may be unwilling to reveal experience of domestic violence to interviewers. Results from the 1996 BCS self-completion module on domestic violence were published in Home Office Research Study No. 191, deposited in the Library. This more confidential approach to measurement revealed that the proportion of women that were victims in the last year of domestic assault was over three times higher than in the main BCS.

  Details of homicides by constituency and for the United Kingdom are not held centrally. The available information relates to currently recorded offences of homicide (murder, manslaughter and infanticide) where the relationship of the victim to the suspect includes current or former spouse, cohabitant or lover. Information for England and Wales is as follows.
  1032W

  Number of homicides by current or former spouse, cohabitant or

  lover, England and Wales

  Number

  Number of homicides by current or former spouse, cohabitant or

  lover, England and Wales

  Number

  1997–98

  131

  1998–99

  104

  1999–2000

  112

  2000–01

  127

  2001–02

  148

  Note:

  As at 8 October 2002, figures are subject to revision as cases are dealt with by the police and by the courts, or as further information becomes available.

  Drink-driving
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many first time convictions for drink-driving resulted in custodial sentences in the last three years, broken down by police authority. [91568]

  Hilary Benn
  Information on the number of first time convictions for drink-driving resulting in custodial sentences is not available.

  The table provides information on the numbers of offenders that were sentenced for the first conviction of drink-driving in England and Wales from data samples in 1998, 1999 and 2000 and also the number who were given custodial or other sentences. Due to the small numbers in the samples sentenced to custody it is not possible to give a break down by Police Force Area.

  Sentence

  Number of offenders

  Percentage

  Number of first time drink-drivers sentenced in a four week sentencing sample or 1998

  Immediate custody

  307

  2.7

  Community penalty

  1,539

  13.5

  Fine

  9,445

  83.0

  Other sentence

  82

  0.7

  Total

  11,373

  100.0

  Number of first time drink-drivers sentenced in a four week sentencing sample for 1999

  Immediate custody

  137

  2.5

  Community penalty

  721

  13.3

  Fine

  4,518

  83.3

  Other sentence

  50

  0.9

  Total

  5,426

  100.0

  Number of first time drink-drivers sentenced from April to June 2000

  Immediate custody

  140

  2.4

  Community penalty

  830

  14.3

  Fine

  4,803

  82.9

  Other sentence

  24

  0.4

  Total

  5,797

  100.0

  Drug Abuse
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives are under way in Hull and the East Riding to tackle drug abuse. [93823]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The area in question is served by two Drug Action Teams (DATs)—East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston-upon-Hull. They work very closely and meet as a combined forum. The DATs are served by a comprehensive infrastructure including combined Joint Commissioning Groups, groups working across all sections of the National Drugs Strategy, Drug Reference Groups and 15 locality based Drug Forums. They are supported by senior and assistant DAT Coordinator posts.

  Last year (2001–02) the DATs oversaw the allocation of a total budget approaching £15 million pounds, of which nearly 50 per cent. was allocated to treatment services, 25 per cent. on addressing the availability of drugs, 15 per cent. on community involvement and 12 per cent. on young people's initiatives.

  The combined DATs have recently produced and published an Annual Report for 2001–02 and a Combined Strategic Plan for 2002–03, copies of which will be placed in the Library. These documents paint a comprehensive picture of initiatives already in place and those planned for the future. In particular, there has been an increase in investment in treatment services.

  As part of the Prison Service Drug Strategy, Her Majesty's Prison Hull is actively working towards reducing the supply of, and demand for, illegal drugs among prisoners. Hull offers drug-misusing prisoners a range of drug interventions—including detoxification and counselling, assessment, referral, advice and through care (CARAT) services. The through care elements of the latter are aimed at establishing links to treatment services in the community to ensure that the progress made during custody is consolidated post-release. Prisoners are encouraged to remain drug-free, and to demonstrate this commitment, they can sign Voluntary Drug Testing compacts.

  To help deter drug smuggling, the prison can enforce visits bans and closed visits and has access to a drug dog.

  Emergency Contingency Planning
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the degree of preparedness of the Government for a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear incident. [93525]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 28 January 2003]The recent discovery of traces of ricin, followed by arrests in the United Kingdom and abroad, show there is a continuing interest in using chemical, biological or radiological agents as weapons of terror. While there is no credible, specific threat to targets in the United Kingdom, it is vital that the Government continue to protect the public from any possible threat from terrorism. That is why the Government are making substantial investment to ensure that the emergency services have the equipment and trained officers to enable them to respond to the release of CBRN material.
  1034W
  This is on-going work. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety was appointed Minister for CBRN co-ordination in 2001 supported by a Cabinet subcommittee and a dedicated team of officials at the Home Office. We are continually learning and developing the best way to protect the UK from terrorism and to manage the consequences of terrorism, in whatever form it comes. However the Government do not give detailed information on CBRN capabilities, as this information could be useful to terrorists.

  Entitlement Card Consultation
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures have been taken to ensure that responses to the consultation that are against the entitlement card are accurately recorded; and if he will make a statement. [93491]

  Beverley Hughes
  Since the Government announced in February 2002 that it would be publishing a consultation paper, all correspondence received by e-mail and post has been filed according to the views expressed by the correspondent. Responses received from individuals and organisations have been recorded on a database.

  I am aware that in a small number of cases (estimated to be less than 1 per cent. of the total volume of correspondence), the views of the correspondent were incorrectly recorded. These errors were pointed out by the correspondents when they received a reply. They received an apology and the database has been amended accordingly.

  Eurobank
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what costs have been incurred by the(a) Home Office budget and (b) security services budget arising from the collapse of the Eurobank case; and if he will make a statement. [94409]

  Mr. Blunkett
  None. It is the longstanding policy of successive Governments neither to confirm nor to deny reports or allegations concerning the activities of the intelligence and security agencies.

  Gwent Police
  Mr. David:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from Gwent Police concerning its funding allocations for 2003–04. [93249]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 27 January 2003]I have received one representation made jointly by the Chief Constable of Gwent and the Chairman of Gwent Police Authority. I visited Gwent on 14 January 2003. During the visit the Chief Constable outlined his concerns to me. These concerns are being considered.

  Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the cost is of placing an offender on the Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme; [93359]
  1035W
  (2) whether the Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme is being evaluated; [93361]

  (3) what funding is available to the Youth Justice Board for the Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme; and what funding will be available in (a) 2003–04, (b) 2004–05 and (c) 2005–06; [93358]

  (4) what his estimate is of the number of young offenders who are eligible for the Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme.[93360]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 28 January 2003]The Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme (ISSP) was launched in 2001 to provide the courts with a tough community based programme designed to tackle persistent young offenders. It was extended last year and now provides for approximately 3,500 young offenders a year at an annual cost of £21.5million.

  I am pleased to announce that provision has now been made to complete full national coverage by January 2004, providing in total for 4,200 young people annually. The total cost of the programme over the next three years will be £23 million, £27 million, and £27million respectively.

  The average cost for each six month placement including bail tagging, is £8,500. The total number of young offenders who could be eligible is difficult to calculate because of the combination of criteria which must be satisfied.

  The programme is being fully evaluated by Oxford University: the final report with reconvictions is due in March 2004.

  Internet Child Pornography
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to relieve the backlog of cases concerning internet child pornography. [93598]

  Hilary Benn
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 10 December 2002,Official Report, column 237W.

  I have subsequently met with DAC Carole Hewlett of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) to discuss these on-going investigations, and will continue to monitor progress closely.

  Iraq
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to intern Iraqi citizens in the UK, including asylum seekers, in the event of armed conflict with Saddam Hussein's regime; and if he will make a statement. [91692]

  Mr. Blunkett
  As no decision has been taken on whether to take military action in Iraq, this is a hypothetical situation. I have no plans at this stage but plans for dealing with the full range of potential consequences of armed conflict overseas are kept constantly under review.

  Landlords (Prosecutions)
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many landlords were prosecuted by their tenants for breach of contract in(a) 2002, (b) 2001 and (c) 2000. [90998]
  1036W
  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not collected centrally by the Home Department.

  Lincolnshire Police Force
  Mr. Mark Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convicted criminals in the Lincolnshire police authority area were re-offenders in each year from 1997 to 2002. [94224]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested is not available.

  Missing Persons
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial assistance his Department has given to the National Missing Persons Helpline in each year since 1997. [93113]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Missing Persons Helpline (N MPH) is a charitable organisation and does not receive any direct funding from the Home Office.

  However, a joint bid by the police and the NMPH to the Invest to Save Budget, which has been led by the Home Office, has been successful. Funding of £810,000 has been secured for a missing persons project. The aim of the project is the establishment of joint working arrangements between the UK Police Service and the NMPH, together with improved recording and information sharing.

  Murders
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many murders were committed between 1 April 1996 and 31 March 1999. [93565]

  Mr. Denham
  Information held centrally on the Homicide Index is in the form of homicides (murder, manslaughter and infanticide) recorded by the police in England and Wales. The number of homicides currently recorded by the police for the period 1 April 1996 to 31 March 1999 is 1,834.

  The latest available homicide statistics were published in Home Office Statistical Bulletin No. 01/03, "Crime in England and Wales 2001–02: Supplementary Volume".

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been convicted of committing murders in each of the last 10 years. [94064]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested is contained in the table.

  Persons convicted of murder, England and Wales,1992 to 2001

  Year

  Number

  1992

  182

  1993

  211

  1994

  192

  1995

  214

  1996

  257

  1997

  275

  1998

  256

  1999

  252

  2000

  261

  2001

  285

  Figures for 2002 are not yet available.

  Official Travel
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total expenditure of(a) his Department and (b) its agencies was on official travelling in 2001–02. [84784]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 3 December 2003]Total Home Office expenditure on official travelling in 2001–02 was £12,959,000. This includes a small element of subsistence allowance, which cannot be separately identified without disproportionate cost.

  The expenditure on travel by the Home Office agencies, in 2001–02 was as follows:

  Agency

  Cost (£)

  Forensic Science Service

  1,924,000

  Her Majesty's Prison Service

  8,769,000

  United Kingdom Passport Service

  2,583,000

  The Forensic Science Service and the United Kingdom Passport Service figures also include subsistence costs that could not be separately identified without disproportionate cost.

  Overstayers
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications under the Regulation of Overstayers scheme have been(a) received and (b) approved in each year since its inception; and for migrants from which countries. [93088]

  Beverley Hughes
  (a) 15,315 applications were received by the closing date (revised figure following a full review).

  (b) 255 (April 2001); 1,079 (April 2002) and 2,173 (as at September 2002—latest figures available).

  Information about countries of origin is not available.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are taken to verify(a) the identity and (b) criminal record of applicants under the Regulation of Overstayers scheme. [93089]

  Beverley Hughes
  Documentary evidence of identity is required on all applications under this scheme. Those applicants who previously applied for asylum will have been through a rigorous screening process. Specially trained caseworkers assess all cases carefully to identify any indication of criminal activity. All such cases are referred to a senior caseworker. Cases where an extant Deportation Order may be evoked or other specifically identified categories will always involve a criminal record check and require clearance by a Senior Officer.

  Additionally, applicants with potential security interest are security checked before being granted leave.

  Police Authorities
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change the membership and responsibilities of police authorities. [92689]
  1038W
  Mr. Denham
  There are no plans to change the membership or responsibilities of police authorities.

  Police Call-centres
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which police forces in the United Kingdom rely on call-centres for handling telephone calls from the public; and if he will make a statement. [92686]

  Mr. Denham
  Detailed information is not available on this subject as differing systems are in place throughout the UK, using call-centres, switchboards and direct lines.

  The recent National Policing Plan sets out the Government's commitment to improving the quality and efficiency of contact between the police and the public and call handling is an important aspect of this. We are working closely with the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the Association of Police Authorities (APA) to improve standards.

  Police Command Units
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the 30 basic command units are; and which 30 police stations dealt with the highest levels of(a) acquisitive crime and (b) crime by drug addicts in the last year for which figures are available. [91132]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written statement my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department gave the House on 21 January 2003 about the additional funding being allocated to the 30 basic command units with the highest levels of acquisitive crime. Supporting information on the selection criteria has been placed in the Library.

  National recorded crime statistics can be analysed to allow a ranking order at regional (basic command unit) level but no lower.

  Police Funding
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many police officers in North Yorkshire he estimates are paid out of police grants, with particular reference to rural funding for police officers; [92823]

  (2) what plans he has to increase the amount of rural funding for police officers for the years (a) 2003–04, (b) 20047–05 and (c) 2005–06; [92822]

  (3) how many police officers in North Yorkshire are paid from police grants paid by Government; and what specific provision was made in the police pay formula for additional funds to be made available to North Yorkshire to pay the increase. [92821]

  Mr. Denham
  General grant is not paid on the basis of supporting a particular number of police officers, but on an overall assessment of relative authority needs and resources.

  Specific grant from the Crime Fighting Fund is supporting the recruitment of officers over and above forces previous plans for the three years to March 2003.
  1039W
  Under the Crime Fighting Fund (CFF) recruitment initiative North Yorkshire Police have been allocated an additional 68 recruits.

  In 2000–01, the first year of the scheme, the force appointed 64 new recruits, of whom four were funded by the CFF. In 2001–02 the force appointed 100 new recruits, including 37 CFF funded recruits. North Yorkshire will be able to take on 27 CFF funded recruits this financial year.

  For 2003–04 the Rural Policing Fund will allocate £30 million in additional funding between the 31 forces that have the most widespread population. North Yorkshire will receive £2,018,029 through the Rural Policing Fund in 2003–04.

  It is for the Chief Officer to decide how best to spend this additional money to enhance policing in rural areas.

  No decisions about the Rural Policing Fund have been taken for 2004–05 and 2005–06.

  Police Helicopter Sorties
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police helicopter sorties were made in each of the last five years, broken down by police force; and what the annual cost was to each police force. [93306]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not held centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. 39 police forces in England and Wales currently operate an Air Support Unit and the Home Office allocates grant of £4 million a year between forces as a contribution towards the capital cost of this facility. The remaining capital and operating costs are met by the police forces themselves.

  Police Numbers
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the numbers of police officers in North Yorkshire in(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04;[92824]

  (2) if he will make a statement on policing in North Yorkshire, with particular reference to how many officers he forecasts in the authority for years (a) 2004, (b) 2005 and (c) 2006. [93011]

  Mr. Denham
  North Yorkshire Police had 1,417 officers on 31 March 2002. This was 112 more than March 2001 and was a record number of officers. Information on strength for 31 March 2003 will not be published until the summer.

  Under the Crime Fighting Fund (CFF) recruitment initiative North Yorkshire Police have been allocated an additional 68 recruits over and above the force's previous recruitment plans for the three years to March 2003. Funding for these officers will continue in 2003–04. The CFF will continue in 2003–04 and we will fund 75 per cent. of the cost of new recruits through CFF rather than 100 per cent. as in the past three years. North Yorkshire Police Authority has been allocated £20,000 which on the basis of 75 per cent. funding should be sufficient for the force to recruit a further four police officers through this fund.
  1040W
  Apart from ring-fenced provision for a particular purpose, such as the Crime Fighting Fund, decisions about the police budget and the allocation of resources, including numbers of officers, are matters for the North Yorkshire Police Authority and the Chief Constable (Ms Della Cannings). It is therefore not possible to provide estimates of North Yorkshires police strength in future years.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers(a) are in service and (b) were in service in (i) 1997 and (ii) 2001 in Devon. [93379]

  Mr. Denham
  Devon is part of the Devon & Cornwall Constabulary and information is not collected on a regular basis about the number of officers deployed to Basic Command Units with in force areas. I would however refer the hon. Member to my reply of 2 December 2002,Official Report, column 589W to the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) setting out police strength for each Basic Command Unit for each force in England and Wales as at 31 March 2002.

  The deployment of resources between the four territorial divisions and other specialist operational and support units of the Devon & Cornwall Constabulary is an operational matter for the Chief Constable (Mrs. Maria Wallis QPM).

  Police Officer Numbers
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance his Department issues to police forces on the supply of information on officer numbers, with particular reference to the inclusion of individuals(a) recruited but not yet receiving pay and (b) undergoing basic training. [93307]

  Mr. Denham
  Published Home Office statistics on police officer numbers include probationer officers who have joined the service and are being paid. The statistics do not include individuals who are recruited but not yet receiving pay. The figures include officers undergoing initial basic training, which is included within the two year probationary period.

  Police Discipline
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers in each police force area were disciplined for unauthorised disclosure of information to the media in the last year for which figures are available. [94493]

  Mr. Denham
  This information is not held centrally and it could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to review the recruitment procedure for the police; and if he will make it his policy to re-examine the rule within the recruitment procedure relating to epilepsy.[93264]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government are introducing national standards for police recruitment as part of the Police Reform Programme. We are reviewing the
  1041W
  fitness, eyesight and medical standards and eligibility criteria, and introducing a national application form and selection process. The new procedures will be phased in during 2003–04.

  The guidelines on medical standards for recruitment (which include epilepsy) are the subject of a study by QinetiQ which will report in the spring.

  Police
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of police officers recruited in each year since 1990 were graduates. [93658]

  Mr. Denham
  Information has been collected by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary only from 1995. The numbers of graduates recruited against numbers of total police appointments is as follows.

  Year

  Graduate recruits

  Total police appointments

  1995–96

  794

  4,991

  1996–97

  944

  6,410

  1997–98

  833

  6,556

  1998–99

  673

  5,560

  1999–2000

  767

  4,683

  2000–01

  797

  8,612

  2001–02

  1,306

  11,647

  Preston Prison
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will construct a hospital wing for Wymott and Garth, Preston prison. [93716]

  Hilary Benn
  We have no plans to construct hospital wings at either establishment.

  Prison Estates
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) where maintenance of the streets, street-lighting, drainage and sewerage systems on the Parkhurst, Albany and Camp Hill prison estates remain the responsibility of the Prison Service of his Department,(a) what programmes of planned maintenance are in place, (b) how financial responsibility for maintenance is divided between his Department and householders and (c) which of his or the Prison Service's managers holds day-to-day responsibility for the delivery of essential maintenance; [91271]

  (2) if he will list the residential streets on the Parkhurst, Albany and Camp Hill prison estates, showing for each (a) how many housing units have been sold and how many remain in the ownership of the Prison Service or his Department and (b) whether, where houses have been sold, (i) ownership and (ii) maintenance of the streets, street-lighting, drainage and sewerage systems remain the responsibility of the Prison Service or his Department. [91270]

  Hilary Benn
  The Prison Service owns six houses within its former quarters estates adjacent to the prisons at Parkhurst, Camphill and Albany. There is a complex pattern of ownership of boundaries within these estates with the Prison Service also retaining ownership some roads and areas of open space, some with outline planning 1042W
  permission for further residential redevelopment. Responsibility for maintaining all highways, open space areas and services lies with current land owners, except where adopted by utility providers. Where land and premises have been sold by the Prison Service maintenance responsibilities are specified within the sale conveyances. There is no legal obligation on the Prison Service to maintain privately owned highways and services and there is no planned maintenance programme in place. Maintenance of Prison Service owned land and services is organised by the prisons' works departments.

  The Prison Service retains the right under the terms of sale conveyances granted to directly recharge the cost of highway and services maintenance it does complete to all private owners, on these estates, benefiting from the works. The Prison Service contributes to such expenditure according to the benefit it derives, if any, from such works. Due to Prison Service funding priorities and strong opposition from many residents to the possibility of recharges being made, only limited maintenance works have been completed in recent years.

  The Prison Service has been working closely with the Isle of Wight council and the residents associations to try to reach agreement on proposals for upgrading the highways and services on these estates, to a standard where they can be formally adopted and maintained by the Isle of Wight council and utility providers.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of his planning applications for the sites of the(a) Parkhurst, (b) Albany and (c) Camp Hill prison estates, stating for each what obstacles remain to the granting of planning permission. [91272]

  Hilary Benn
  The Prison Service has obtained outline planning consents for residential development of six sites which have or may become surplus to operational requirements. Ecological surveys are being completed in respect of two other sites before further consideration of outstanding planning applications.

  Prison Places
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the number of available prison places; and if he will make a statement. [94063]

  Hilary Benn
  In England and Wales, £60 million has already been made available to provide 740 additional places by March 2004. This is in addition to funding from the 2002 Budget that will provide 2,320 additional places by March of this year, together with 400 places at Birmingham prison, which are funded through the 2000 spending review and are scheduled to open in April 2004.

  We have also recently approved Prison Service plans to build two new prisons at Ashford (near Heathrow) and Peterborough in Cambridgeshire. These two new prisons will together provide around 1, 300 places by 2004–05. In addition, a further £140 million has been agreed for the Prison Service, which will be used to build a further 800 places over the financial years 2004–05 and 2005–06.
  1043W
  Information on establishments in Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for the Scottish Executive and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland respectively.

  Life Imprisonment
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been sentenced to life imprisonment under section 109 of the Powers of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 in each month during which the Act has been in force.[93965]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 29 January 2003]The available information is contained in the table

  Persons sentenced to a mandatory life sentence for a second

  serious offence under section 109 of the powers of the criminal

  court (sentencing) Act 2000, England and Wales, December 1999

  to December 2001

  December 1999 (5)

  September (5)

  June 2001 (7)

  January 2000 (8)

  October 2000 (3)

  July 2001 (3)

  February 2000 (6)

  November 2000 (5)

  August 2001 (2)

  March 2000 (3)

  December 2000 (1)

  September 2001 (—)

  April 2000 (4)

  January 2001 (2)

  October 2001(9)

  May 2000 (4)

  March 2001 (6)

  December 2001 (3)

  July 2000 (5)

  April 2001 (2)

  August 2000 (2)

  May 2001 (6)

  Total 113

  Figures prior to December 1999 were not separately notified to the Home Office Court Proceedings Database. Figures for 2002 will be published in the Aututmn.

  Racism Register
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if there is a register kept by(a) the Home Office and (b) the CRE of persons suspected of racism. [93583]

  Beverley Hughes
  Neither the Home Office nor the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) keep such a register.

  Reconviction Rates
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of prisoners released in(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999 were reconvicted within two years; and what his assessment is of reconviction rates for prisoners released in (i) 2000, (ii) 2001 and (ii) 2002.[92160]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 21 January 2003]The two-year 'un-adjusted' reconviction rate for prisoners discharged from custody in 1997 was 58 per cent. The provisional figure for 1998 was also 58 per cent. These rates are published in "Prison Statistics—England and Wales 2000".

  Reconviction rates for offenders discharged from custody in the first quarter of 1999 have also been calculated according to the requirements of the Governments Public Service Agreement (PSA) 10 target. These are adjusted to take out convictions for offences committed prior to discharge, giving a
  1044W
  reconviction rate of 55.3 per cent. The equivalent figures for the first quarter of 1997 and 1998 are 56.8 per cent. and 55.7 per cent. respectively.

  Reconviction rates for more recent periods are not yet available.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of offenders completing community sentences in(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999 were reconvicted within two years; and what his assessment is of reconviction rates for offenders completing programmes in (i) 2000, (ii) 2001 and (iii) 2002. [92161]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 21 January 2003]: Reconviction rates for offenders commencing community penalties in the first quarter of 1997 have been calculated according to the requirements of the Government's Public Service Agreement (PSA) 10 target. These are adjusted to take out convictions for offences committed prior to commencement of the penalty and convictions for breach of the penalty where no further offence had been committed.

  This gives a reconviction rate for the first quarter of 1997 of 45.7 per cent. The equivalent figure for the first quarters of 1998 and 1999 are 46.0 per cent. and 44.3 per cent. respectively.

  Two-year reconviction rates are not available for offenders completing programmes in 2000, 2001 or 2002.

  Schools (Crime)
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent study he has made into the level of crime in proximity to schools. [90782]

  Mr. Denham
  Two recently published studies commissioned by the Home Office and Youth Justice Board provide an indication of the level of personal robbery and street crime in the vicinity of schools.

  Recently published Home Office research ("The Nature of Personal Robbery", Home office Research Study 254, 2003) which looked at the nature of personal robbery, found that only 1 per cent. of personal robberies actually occurred on or around school or college premises, though this may be an underestimate. However, the study also found that the risk period for school age victims was late afternoon (2 p.m. to 6 p.m.) when more than half (54 per cent.) were targeted and when many were making their way home from school, or similarly socialising with friends.

  Similarly, recently published research commissioned by the Youth Justice Board ("Young People and Street Crime: Research into young people's involvement in street crime"), which focuses on street crime in London boroughs in the main, found that offending peaks dramatically after school finishes on weekdays, often in the vicinity of schools or on the main routes taken home by pupils. The research suggested that even if the perpetrators had not attended school during the day, they may well gravitate back there if they have nothing else to do.
  1045W
  As part of the package of measures to tackle street crime and improve behaviour in schools, there are now 100 police officers based in selected schools in areas with high levels of street crime. This is a joint initiative between the Department for Education and Skills (DfES), the Youth Justice Board (YJB) and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and is called Safer School Partnerships (SSP).

  Safer School Partnerships build on previous police involvement in schools where police officers have tended to take an essentially teaching role; as part of an SSP their role is more operational. They provide a much fuller level of resource and will be able to develop a much closer relationship with the school and its community.

  Police officers are working with school staff and other local agencies to reduce victimisation, criminality and anti-social behaviour within the school and its local community. SSPs aim to reduce crime in and around schools, so making cost-effective use of police time; helping schools improve, so parents keep sending their children to those schools; and reducing disorder, so heads can spend time improving their school, instead of dealing with behaviour problems.

  The specific areas where SSPs are making a contribution to schools and their community include prevention and reduction of crime, anti-social behaviour and related incidents in and around the school, together with any bullying and violence experienced by pupils and staff, truancy and exclusion, damage to school buildings and drug related incidents.

  Charity Commission
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Charity Commission's service delivery agreement for 2003 to 2006 will be published. [94114]

  Beverley Hughes
  This is a matter for the Charity Commission. The Charity Commission's service delivery agreement for 2003–06 is currently being finalised in discussion with Her Majesty's Treasury. The Chief Charity Commissioner will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Statistics (Publication)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when(a) the British Crime Survey, (b) Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, (c) Prison Statistics, England and Wales, (d) Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System, (e) Control of Immigration Statistics and (f) the Home Office Annual Report were published in each year from 1992 to 2002. [93333]

  Mr. Denham
  Within the time frame specified, 1992–2002:(a) British Crime Survey published November 1993, 24 September 1996, 13 October 1998, 17 October 2000, 25 October 2001.
  (b) Criminal Statistics, E & W published December 1993 (1992), November 1994 (1993), November 1995 (1994), November 1996 (1995), November 1997 (1996), November 1998 (1997), March 2000 (1998), December 2000 (1999), December 2001 (2000), December 2002 (2001).
  1046W
  (c) Prison Statistics, E & W published 20 February 1992 (1990), 30 March 02 (1991), 23 June 1994 (1992), 29 June 1995 (1993), 9 February 1996 (1994), 30 August 1996 (1995), 31 July 1997 (1996), 30 July 1998 (1997), 18 October 1999 (1998), 31 July 2000 (1999), 15 August 2001 (2000).
  (d) Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System published September 1992, July 1994, March 1996, December 1997, 8 December 1998, 9 December 1999, December 2000, 7 November 2002 on web and 15 November 2002 hardcopy.
  (e) Control of Immigration Statistics published September 1992, October 1993, August 1994, August 1995, August 1996, August 1997, August 1998, August 1999, October 2000, November 2001, November 2002.
  (f) Home Office Annual Report published 12 February 1992,
  10 February 1993, 2 March 1994, 8 March 1995, 20 March 1996, 20 March 1997, 6 April 1998, 26 March 1999, 11 April 2000, 30 March 2001, 13 June 2002.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further measures have been put in place to protect potentially high-risk areas from terrorist attacks in the last 12 months. [93381]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Over the last 12 months the Government has enhanced the existing programme providing protective security advice to critical and high-risk sectors aimed at reducing the risks from a range of possible terrorist attack methods. The number of industrial operators receiving advice on counterterrorism precautions has substantially increased, so as to cover operations critical to the national infrastructure and also a wide range of sites and sectors which could be considered attractive terrorist targets and, if successfully attacked, would potentially cause significant loss of life. Protective security advice is also made available to a broad range of contacts in the business and commercial community which includes the retail sector and operators of major public venues.

  Thames Valley Police
  Mr. Mackay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on retention in the Thames Valley police force.[91436]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 20 January 2003]Thames Valley police has been recruiting strongly in recent years. However, the force has been experiencing retention difficulties including a net outflow of transfers.

  I share the chief constable's concern about this. It is important to establish what is causing these difficulties. We are therefore working with the chief constable, police authority and staff associations, to look at all the associated issues and to develop practical solutions.

  Tony Martin
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the findings of the recent Parole Board report on the case of Tony Martin, prisoner at H MP Highpoint. [92617]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 21 January 2003]Decisions taken by the Parole Board in respect of individual cases are not published.

  West Midlands Police Force
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the ethnic composition of the West Midlands Police Force was in each of the last five years. [93472]

  Mr. Denham
  The following tables are for police officers and all police staff and have been produced from figures supplied by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC).

  1. Police officers

  White

  Black

  Asian

  Other

  31 March 1998

  6,859

  132

  123

  42

  —

  —

  31 March 1999

  7,008

  137

  131

  44

  —

  —

  31 March 2000

  6,887

  142

  142

  44

  —

  —

  31 march 2002

  7,050

  149

  176

  46

  —

  —

  White

  Mixed

  Black/Black British

  Asian/Asian British

  Chinese or other ethnic group

  Unspecified

  31 March 2002

  6,674

  73

  112

  170

  10

  555

  2. All Police staff

  White

  Black

  Asian

  Other

  31 March 1998

  9,694

  234

  204

  59

  —

  —

  31 March 1999

  9,716

  226

  224

  62

  —

  —

  31 March 2000

  9,575

  227

  240

  61

  —

  —

  31 March 2001

  9,789

  238

  275

  67

  —

  —

  White

  Mixed

  Black/Black British

  Asian/Asian British

  Chinese or other ethnic group

  Unspecified

  31 March 2002

  9,299

  97

  189

  285

  16

  773

  Women Prisoners
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women serving prison sentences gave birth(a) in prison and (b) in hospital in each of the last five years; and how many were allowed to keep their babies in prison. [93966]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 29 January 2003]All women prisoners who are pregnant are transferred to local hospitals to give birth where normal National Health Service (NHS) care applies. No figures are held centrally on the number of prisoners who have given birth or the number of women who have been in Mother and Baby Units in the last five years.
  1048W
  For the first four years, the figures were collected in four categories. For 2002, the 2001 Census categories of ethnic group were adopted and so there is a break in the series. Figures for 2002 have been affected by the low response rate from staff to self-classify ethnicity based on the 2001 Census classification. This resulted in a number of police staff being classified as 'Unspecified' ethnicity.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women prisoners have children who are(a) under five years old and (b) under 18 months old. [93967]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 29 January 2003]There is no routinely collected data on the number of women prisoners with children in these age ranges. However, a Chief Inspector's survey in 1994 found that over a third of the mothers had one or more children under five years old. Studies published in 1997 and 2000 found that 60 per cent. and 66 per cent. of women prisoners respectively had dependent children under the age of 18.

TRANSPORT

  Rural Bus Challenge
  The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar)
  I am pleased to announce today approval of the 46 projects listed below which were submitted as bids by local authorities in this competition. This follows careful consideration of the 105 bids totalling almost 3 times the funding available submitted by authorities

  £

  Authority

  Project

  Total Award

  Bath and NE

  Chew Valley Explorer

  396,000

  Somerset

  Bedfordshire

  North East Beds Dart

  751,261

  Buckinghamshire

  On Call

  350,000

  Cheshire

  Taxi Rider

  300,000

  TRACS

  320,000

  Cornwall

  Penwith Corlink

  455,000

  Transport Services

  Cumbria

  X35 Furness Express

  805,573

  Enhancement

  Derbyshire

  Derbyshire Integrated

  954,000

  Rural Transport

  Buxton & District

  320,960

  Accessible Transport

  Devon

  The Jurassic Coast Line

  665,000

  Durham

  County Durham—A

  743,000

  Healthy Response

  East Riding

  My Bus

  358,000

  Essex

  Viking Community

  193,600

  Transport HEART

  scheme

  Epping Forest Community

  99,900

  Transport Brokerage

  Gloucestershire

  Gloucestershire Village

  631,750

  Link

  Greater Manchester

  Hattersly

  329,500

  Uppermill and Mossley

  234,000

  Partington and Cadishead

  44,000

  Hampshire

  Hampshire Cango Further

  735,732

  Herefordshire

  Completing the Jigsaw

  794,000

  Hertfordshire

  Health and Accessible

  265,900

  Rural Transport

  Isle of Wight

  The East Wight Villager

  426,530

  Kent

  Swale Unified Network

  215,000

  Phase 2

  Lancashire

  Garstang Super 8

  476,873

  Lincolnshire

  Interconnect Building a

  870,400

  Flexible Future

  Medway

  Tackling Social Exclusion

  336,435

  & Isolation

  Merseyside

  Billinge Whiston Hospital

  24,000

  Service

  Norfolk

  Broadshopper

  473,580

  Fenland Connections

  393,570

  North East

  Demand Responsive

  344,512

  Lincolnshire

  Community Transport

  46WS

  £

  Authority

  Project

  Total Award

  North Yorkshire

  Hawes-Garsdale

  261,000

  Stationlink

  Increase Rural Dial-a-ride

  280,500

  Information Centre for

  90,000

  Community Transport

  Nottinghamshire

  Demand Responsive

  479,000

  Transport between

  Newark and Bingham

  Shropshire

  Wem Minibus Links

  355,694

  South Yorkshire

  Southern Communities

  768,000

  Somerset

  Somerset Inclusion Bus

  94,500

  Buddy

  Stockton-on-Tees

  The Village Bus

  360,000

  Staffordshire

  Staffordshire Border Car

  178,500

  Weaver Ward Access Bus

  60,000

  Suffolk

  Grass Routes

  190,720

  Tyne & Wear

  Western Links Stage 2

  721,216

  West Sussex

  South Downs Route

  833,000

  West Yorkshire

  Pennine Taxibus

  872,020

  Wiltshire

  Wiltshire Taxi Link

  169,440

  Worcestershire

  Malvern Matters

  992,000

  SRA Strategic Plan
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling)
  The Strategic Rail Authority has today published its second Strategic Plan. I have placed copies in the Libraries of the House and it is also available on the SRA website.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Fraud (Dover)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks)
  On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) inspection report on Dover District Council was published today and copies of the report have been placed in the Library. This report finds that Dover District Council has some commendable performance while some areas are very poor.

  The report identifies the positive aspects as a benefits claim form that complies with the BFI model claim form, achievement of good results from a customer survey, and Verification Framework compliance in most areas. Dover needs to: run benefit take-up campaigns; verify residency more vigorously and income in renewal claims; carry out visits to Verification Framework requirements; apply benefit periods in accordance with risk and apply the fit and proper person test before making payments to landlords.

  Speed of processing is a distinct weakness, with only 25 per cent of claims sampled being processed within targets. Breaks in payments were found in 23 per cent of renewals sampled.

  There were significant problems with all aspects of the overpayments regime. The council is undertaking a fundamental review of the overpayments service, which is to be completed and implemented by March 2003.
  47WS
  The report finds that the counter-fraud area gave the greatest concern. The council's investigators were poorly trained, and were overloaded with referrals, many of which were of spurious value. Sanctions were inadequate. The report also finds evidence of failure to comply with the laws governing investigation techniques.

  In 2000–01, Dover District Council administered approximately £27 million in housing benefits. This is approximately 40 per cent. of its total gross revenue expenditure.

  The report makes recommendations to help the council address the remaining weaknesses and to further improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as counter-fraud activities.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Export Control Act 2002
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell)
  I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses a Consultation Paper on a draft Order relating to the export of objects of cultural interest to be made under the Export Control Act 2002. The text is also available on the DCMS Departmental website at http://www.culture.gov.uk/heritage/export_controls.html.

LORD CHANCELLOR

  Legal Services Ombudsman
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton)
  My right hon. and noble Friend, The Lord Chancellor has appointed Dr. Zahida Manzoor as Legal Services Ombudsman.

  The appointment is for a 3 year fixed term in the first instance and Dr. Manzoor is expected to take up post on 3 March 2003.

  Dr. Manzoor is co-founder and marketing director of her own company. She was formerly a member of the NHS Policy Board, Regional Chair of the NHS Executive, Northern and Yorkshire Regions, Commissioner and Deputy Chair of the Commission for Racial Equality and Chair of the Bradford Health Authority.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Farm Incomes
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food ant Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett)
  Revised estimates of farm income, output and productivity of agriculture during 2002 were published on 30 January. These confirm the increase in farm incomes forecast last November, and indicate a rise of 15 per cent. (14 in real terms) compared to 2001.

  Details have been placed in the Library of the House

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Complaints Authority (Shootings)
  The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham)
  I am pleased to be able to place in the Library a copy of the Police Complaints Authority's (PCA) Review of Shootings by Police in England and Wales between 1998 and 2001.

  On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I commissioned this Review under Section 79(1) of the Police Act 1996 which allows the Home Secretary to call for a report from the PCA on issues of concern. I announced the terms of reference to Parliament on 20 November 2001. They were:
  "The review will consider what lessons can be learnt from the investigations into police shootings, which have resulted in death or injury since January 1998.

  In particular the review will look at:
  The planning, control and conduct of operations;
  The way in which the concerns of the bereaved families were addressed, and how they were kept informed of the progress of the investigation; and
  The training and skill needs of the police officers involved in such operations, particularly at command level."

  I am very grateful to the PCA, and, in particular, Mr. Alan Bailey, Dr. David Best and the two Deputy Chairs for the hard work and expertise they have brought to this report.

  I welcome the report and its positive findings. It covers a very difficult and demanding area of police work where great professionalism is needed. Rightly, it gives credit to police forces for the small number of shots discharged by police officers in armed responses and praises much policing practice. The overall picture is very positive and it gives clear guidance on how best to manage firearms operations to minimise threat to life.

  I commissioned the report in order to make sure that the lessons from each individual incident could be learned and shared by all forces. While there is always understandable public concern when someone who is shot turns out to be unarmed, we must recognise that armed police face enormously difficult decisions. Sometimes these decisions have tragic consequences, and it is nonetheless essential to ensure that operational procedures, training and support to officers minimises the number of avoidable deaths and injuries.

  Our police officers are not routinely armed. The use of firearms is a rare last resort, considered only where there is a serious risk to public or police safety. When it is necessary for police officers to deploy firearms, it is vital that they are properly equipped and expertly trained, to respond effectively to the serious situations they have to face. Police use of firearms is subject to stringent guidelines from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), which govern training, control and the conduct of operations. This is reflected in their excellent record against international standards.

  The PCA report makes a number of recommendations to further improve the management of firearms incidents. Many of these are already underway, and I have published an action plan today, which I will also place in the Library, which sets out how we will work with the police service and other agencies

  49WS
  to build on existing good work, and take forward the recommendations in the report. We are determined to build on the good practice already in place by working closely with the police and others—including mental health professionals.

  It is essential that our police have effective less lethal alternatives available to them. The search for suitable less lethal options is complex and requires in-depth consideration of a range of issues. After rigorous medical and operational trials, and at ACPO's request, we have agreed that pilots on taser use will go ahead. If any less lethal options are ultimately recommended to police these must provide real tactical solutions to disorder and violence.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Electricity (Trading and Transmission) Bill
  The Minister for Energy and Construction (Mr. Brian Wilson)
  The draft Electricity (Trading and Transmission) Bill, which will bring forward the British Electricity Transmission and Trading Arrangements (BETTA), is being published today. The Trade and Industry Committee will now undertake pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill and will issue a report by Easter.

  Copies of the draft Bill and draft Explanatory Notes are available in the House Library. A Regulatory Impact Assessment has been published on DTI and Ofgem's websites.

  Export Control Act 2002
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths)
  I have today published a consultation document on the secondary legislation to be introduced under the Export Control Act 2002. This makes provision for new controls on the transfer abroad of military technology by electronic means; the transfer of technology by any means or provision of technical assistance overseas which may be used in connection with weapons of mass destruction programmes; and trade in military equipment between overseas countries.50WS
  The consultation document contains the drafts of the orders, explains how the new controls are expected to operate in practice and invites views on their practical implementation. The partial Regulatory Impact Assessment provides an initial assessment of the impact of the new controls and invites views on the estimated compliance costs. The consultation period will last for 3 months, closing on 30 April 2003. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

DEFENCE

  Iraq (Reservists)
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)
  In my statement on 7 January 2003,Official Report, columns 23–25. I informed the House that I had 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. I explained that the overall scale of mobilisation would depend upon the continuing evolution of our contingency planning, that we envisaged initially sending out sufficient call-out notices to secure around 1,500 reservists, and that we would issue further notices as appropriate.

  That process of calling out and mobilising reservists is underway. By 24 January 2003, the Services had issued 2,063 notices. As I explained in my statement on 7 January, the number of notices issued has to be significantly larger than the number of reservists required, to allow for the proportion who are likely to be genuinely unavailable.

  Further contingency planning has now clarified the likely size and shape of our additional requirements, in particular in the light of the decision we reached recently on the size and composition of land forces that we plan to deploy, which I described in my statement on 20 January, Official Report, columns 34–35. Our latest assessment is that our overall requirement for reservists is likely to be up to 6,000, including those currently in the process of mobilisation. We will now issue further call-out notices over the coming weeks to enable us to meet this requirement. The size of the requirement will remain under review as our planning continues.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.

Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

National Minimum Wage (Enforcement Notices) Bill [H.L.]
11.6 a.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Enforcement notices]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert—
"(2B) An enforcement notice may not impose a requirement under subsection (2) above in respect of any pay reference period ending more than 6 years before the date on which the notice is served.""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 1 is grouped with Amendment No. 2. I am grateful for the all-party support we have had during the course of the Bill and I hope that we can also win all-party support for the government amendments which follow on from the debate held at Report stage. Briefly the first amendment will limit the period that an enforcement notice can cover to the period of six years before the date on which it is issued, and the second amendment is a consequential amendment to the Title.
Noble Lords may recall from our earlier debates that the Government expect few cases to go back more than three years. That is mainly because the minimum wage regulations require employers to keep pay records for only three years. In practice we expect the Revenue to find it difficult to pursue cases that go further back than that unless there were clear evidence such as payslips held by the worker and no dispute about the hours worked. We would therefore expect very few cases to go back as far as six years. In addition the Limitation Act means that all cases taken through the county courts—the great majority—can only go back for six years.
The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, asked what that meant. Briefly, the six-year limit runs back from the date when the claim is lodged with the court. In the county court, each underpayment is viewed as a separate breach. The six-year time limit runs from the date of each underpayment. So if a claim for an underpayment is not brought within six years., the worker will be time barred from bringing that claim.
Let us take a hypothetical example in which a person has had a job since 1990. The job ends in 2003 and throughout that period the worker had not received the minimum wage—on the basis that the legislation had been in force since 1990. If a claim were lodged for that person in 2003, it could only go back to 1997, six years before the claim was lodged. The arrears for the pre-1997 period could not be recovered because they occurred more than six years before the claim was lodged. On reflection the Government can agree to limit the period that enforcement notices may cover to six years, as sought by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller.
I should stress, however, that we do not propose to limit the existing rights held by individual workers. Of course, it seems very unlikely, for the reasons I have given, that more than a handful of cases will go back for more than six years. But we do not wish to rule out the possibility that individual workers might wish to take cases going back for more than six years to an employment tribunal. To do so would put workers claiming in respect of underpayments of the national minimum wage in a worse position than workers claiming in respect of other contractual underpayments. I am happy, as I said, to limit the powers held by the Government's enforcement officers. However, it seems to me that it would be wrong at the same time to limit the existing rights held by individual workers.
The Government believe that the amendment brings clarity to the situation and ensures that the rights of the worker and employer are respected. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury., for the courteous way in which he has dealt with my earlier amendment, particularly as we said that it would concern only a few cases. I am happy to accept the amendment that has now been produced in lieu.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, as the Minister is aware, I had concerns about the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness in Committee. I was concerned about the points that the Minister raised and that we should not be seen to take away rights from employees or ex-employees that they would otherwise have. In the light of the helpful assurances given by the Minister, I too am happy to support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 2:
Line 5, at end insert "; and to limit the pay reference periods in respect of which a requirement under subsection (2) of that section may be imposed"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
11.11 a.m.
Read a third time.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn)The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn) moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
"CONTRACTS RELATING TO DETENTION AND ESCORT SERVICES
After section 5 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) insert—
"5A CONTRACTS RELATING TO DETENTION AND ESCORT SERVICES
(1) The Board may enter into a contract with another person for the provision of services relating to the detention or escort of persons who have been arrested or are otherwise in custody.
(2) The powers of the Board under this section shall be exercised, on behalf of and in the name of the Board, by the Chief Constable.
(3) The power conferred by this section is subject to any regulations under section 40 of the 1998 Act.""
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships know that I introduced an amendment on Report enabling the Chief Constable to designate any person who is an employee of the contractor, as either a detention officer or an escort officer. The purpose of this new short clause is to provide a consequential amendment to the 2000 Act to put it beyond doubt that the board can enter into a contract for the provision of such services. Your Lordships will have seen that the powers shall be exercised on behalf of the board by the Chief Constable. I beg to move.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, perhaps I may open the Third Reading debate by making some comments. First, I shall make a negative comment. As noble Lords will know, the Government tabled some complex and complicated amendments late on Tuesday evening, which we did not receive until Wednesday morning. I thank the noble and learned Lord for making available his officials to explain those amendments to my party and myself yesterday afternoon. I also accept his personal apologies on behalf of the Northern Ireland Office for this occurrence.
However, as we now sit at 11 o'clock on a Thursday morning, I suggest that if the Government wish to table amendments late—and I understand that there are reasons—perhaps the Procedure Committee should look at the matter with a view to ruling whether, if a major part of a Bill is to be dealt with on a Thursday morning, all amendments should be made available to your Lordships by the previous Tuesday evening. That would give noble Lords the whole of the working day of Wednesday to sort out any problems.
1250
I humbly make that suggestion to the Government, the officials of the House and those who manage our business.
I turn to the noble and learned Lord's amendment. to which I have absolutely no objection. There are one or two issues that I am slightly nervous about and on which I should like some reassurance.
I understand that the Chief Constable has the right to decide which individuals may or may not be contracted to do certain quasi police work. However, I am slightly concerned with the words:
"Contracts relating to detention and escort services".
If that kind of work is put out for public tender by companies or corporations in the normal commercial way, it strikes me that some of the safeguards might go. The Chief Constable might be aware that a company. which is owned, run or managed by a certain group in the community, might not be the most suitable to win the contract. However, if that company returned the lowest bid, I should like reassurance that there will not be EU or other UK legislation in relation to awarding of government contracts that would interfere with the Chief Constable's right to decide from a security point of view which company would not be suitable to do the job. With those slightly nervous queries, I am content with the idea as it stands.
11.15 a.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. His point about national security, so far as contracts are concerned, is a very valid one. He will know that there is another reason why we must be very careful. That is, certain contractors and their employees would come under the most hideous pressure from what one might term as "the other side of the community".
While in another place, there were occasions when those who would be regarded as being from the same side of the community as the terrorist community were shot dead simply because they drove lorries which provided materials to work sites and so on. Of course the murderers were never traced. We must be very careful when making allowances—and, I hope, make them in a sensitive way—when spelling out how to achieve this objective.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Glentoran. Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord whether the contracts to be let by tender will be judged on the basis not of the cheapest but on value for money. That would solve the problems both of the noble Lord on the Cross Benches and of my noble friend on the Front Bench, because clearly it would not be value for money if the potential contracting party was judged to be unsuitable by the Chief Constable or his advisers.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, first I speak to the noble Lord's general point. I take his point that they were complicated amendments. They were available on Tuesday, but effectively there was not an

1251
enormous amount of time to consider them. It may well be that the Procedure Committee would wish to take a view.
As to the other aspects, essentially the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Molyneaux, were speaking of security sensibilities and sensitivities. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, put the matter in a slightly different way. I think I can give the assurance that your Lordships are entitled to look to, because this matter is important.
There are already safeguards in place to ensure that contractors taking on work in sensitive areas are appropriately screened. This is already an issue for contracted-out cleaning services and for certain construction work. So similar considerations would apply to the contracts we are discussing here.
Your Lordships will also have noted that Clause 21(3)(d) of the Bill already makes clear that the Chief Constable can designate a person under this section only if he is satisfied that, and I go to paragraph (d),
"the contractor is a fit and proper person to supervise the carrying out of the functions for the purposes of which the person is to be designated".
There have been challenges in the past. Tinnilly and McEldulf criticised the lack of an appeal mechanism. The system was then modified and the Secretary of State can now issue a certificate that his decision to refuse a tender was made on grounds of national security, public order and/or public safety and that the decision was justified.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, makes a valid point on value for money, which is general to all contracts that are put out to tender by the public service.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 6, line 4, leave out "and (3)" and insert "to (3A)"
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 2 to 7, 10 to 13 and 15 to 18 are the group of which the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, made his "reasonable" criticism. The amendments take a good deal of guiding through and cross referencing in rather a tedious way, and I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his commendation of the officials who I know took time to go through matters with him and, indeed, other noble Lords. I am personally grateful to them, as well.
I undertook at any stage of our consideration of the Bill to give careful attention to criticisms that were raised to see whether we could meet them provided they were consistent with the general scheme of the Bill. I hope that the amendments illustrate that attitude. We want to ensure appropriate protection for sensitive information—which is a public good—while ensuring that the board has access to all the information it needs, another public good, which need not necessarily be in competition with the first.
Amendment No. 16 would require the board to set up a small committee to deal with sensitive information. I take the point made previously by several noble Lords that one does not want too wide a
1252
dissemination of security-sensitive or personally sensitive information. We therefore propose—I hope that this is an acceptable solution—that the committee should have five members, including at least one of the chair and vice-chair, and that the board should seek to appoint a group broadly representative of the full board membership. We do not consider that we ought to be any more specific. The board is working well and developing its own continuing authority.
The point of having a small committee from a large board is to provide a mechanism whereby sensitive information can be shared with the board while keeping its circulation to a reasonable minimum. One key factor that your Lordships mentioned is that we must try to keep such information on a need-to-know basis. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, emphasised that point in Grand Committee and I hope that then and now I have responded to his reasonable satisfaction.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 13 propose that, where the Chief Constable receives a request for information under new Section 33A or for a report under Section 59, and where, in his view, some or all of the information is sensitive, he should have the option of providing that information to the small committee, not the full board. If he were to exercise that option, he would be required to supply a summary of the information in his formal report to the full board. Amendment No. 6 deals with similar arrangements relating to inquiries under Section 60. The Chief Constable would then flag up sensitive information that he provided to the person conducting the inquiry. That person could then share sensitive information with the small committee.
New Section 59(4A), inserted by Amendment No. 3, makes clear that the Secretary of State will have the option, where a matter has been referred to him by the Chief Constable under Section 59(3), of insisting that the Chief Constable supply all or part of the information to the small committee rather than to the full board. Again, that reflects the need-to-know approach. "Sensitive information" means information the disclosure of which could put an individual in danger, or any information that could form one of the grounds of referral set out in new Section 76A(1), inserted by Clause 19.
Of course, the board would be entitled to remit any other issue to the committee if it felt that to be appropriate. It might provide a suitable closed forum for the Chief Constable to discuss sensitive issues relating to continuing investigations or operations. But we do not want to be unduly prescriptive, and I hope that we have found a sensible middle way.
I believe that the new arrangements will allow the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State greater flexibility in exercising their judgment on whether sensitive information should be shared with the board. It is already the case that the Chief Constable is not obliged to refer Section 59 or 60 requests to the Secretary of State, even when they deal with some of the issues mentioned in the grounds of referral. That is, and should be, a matter for the Chief Constable's

1253
judgment. So there is no change of principle here, but I hope that your Lordships will recognise that we have listened carefully to the arguments advanced in Grand Committee and on Report.
I hope that there will never be any need for the committee to be brought into action. The Chief Constable may never require that opportunity. But, as your Lordships have said previously, perhaps we ought to have a safety net just in case.
There is one further important safeguard that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, mentioned. Amendment No. 15 provides that it will be a criminal offence to disclose any information that the Chief Constable has identified as sensitive when sharing it with the board or the small committee. No offence will be committed where disclosure is to any of the persons or for any of the purposes listed in new subsections (5) and (6).
That replicates the arrangements that already apply to the police ombudsman under Section 63 of the 1998 Act. Again, I hope that your Lordships will feel that we have responded to legitimate concerns about not only sensitive information but any criminal sanction that may be required in case of mischief-making leaks. The remaining amendments in the group are consequential changes.
I have spent a little time on the amendments. I sympathise with all those who required hot coffee and a wet towel, because it is difficult to go through them. I hope that I have explained what we have tried to do: to strike the right balance between proper protection and proper access for the board. I commend the amendments to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that explanation. He gave it extremely well, but it demonstrates the complexity of this series of amendments, which in effect create one happening—the new sub-committee.
I do not oppose the amendments. The Government have come some way to meeting my anxieties about secure and classified information and interference with the Chief Constable's operational independence. As I told the noble and learned Lord outside the Chamber, it was of considerable relief to me to learn that all those involved will be subject to the Official Secrets Acts and liable for criminal prosecution should they be found to have leaked sensitive information.
I am, however, still uneasy in several respects and want to register that. I am not happy about a whole set of assumptions that underlie the policy shifts. What the Government saw fit to legislate on in 2000 they no longer consider relevant to the situation in Northern Ireland. In 2000, they were sensibly cautious, but it is still advisable to provide for what may or may not happen. The membership of the board is not yet complete, despite what the Government say about it working well. It is working well in its present make-up. With considerable difficulties that many people do not hear about, but one or two of us do, it is managing some pretty complicated decision-making processes.
1254
I should be far more comfortable discussing such important changes to the structure of policing if I knew precisely with what we were dealing—in other words, if I knew the whole composition of the board and how it will be operated. So far as I understand it, the reason behind the modification to the second ground of referral is that the Government have received representations suggesting that the board would be better served by its removal.
I do not want to make a big issue of this at Third Reading, but having worked through the Bill with the noble and learned Lord, the Members of the Committee and Northern Ireland officials, some of it is aimed at improving previous police Acts and at better policing. Some of the Bill will deliver an excellent format for policing in times of peace. But there is not peace. It is a time of serious uncertainty. The Bill still takes too many risks in the changes it makes.
However, I am grateful for the way in which the Government have moved and the communication that I have had from the Minister and his officials. We shall wait and see. I sincerely hope that the committee is never needed.
11.30 a.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, not being on the Front Bench in this debate, I am grateful for having been included on the circulation list for the noble and learned Lord's amendments.
New subsection (4E) is to be inserted after subsection (4). It is germane to what the noble and learned Lord said a few minutes ago:
"If the Chief Constable supplies information to the committee under subsection (4D) he shall include a summary of it in the report to the Board".
New subsection (4F) states:
"In preparing a summary under subsection (4E) the Chief Constable shall take into account the views of the committee".
"Views" on what? It is an obscure provision. Where there is anxiety, it may relate not to the views so much as to the identity of committee members.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I shall be brief. I share the view that all might not be well with this elite committee, as one might call it. What will be the method of selection of members? The noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal has given us an inkling, but the process may not be so simple. At national level there would be no problem in selecting such a committee. Members would automatically be chosen from the ranks of Privy Counsellors. But we do not have that band of people in Northern Ireland to any great extent.
Is it not invidious to imply that one element of the Policing Board can be trusted and a larger element cannot? Is the thinking, for example, that the favoured few on the elite committee might have prevented the unseemly manoeuvring over the resignation of the head of Special Branch? We have been told that the reason for his resignation was withheld from the board in full. Some members may have been aware of it, but

1255
not everyone. The reasons were discussed recently at a British-Irish intelligence seminar, where it was revealed that the senior officer's dismissal—that is what it amounted to; it was not really a resignation—was conveyed to him by the head of MI5 acting on behalf of the Northern Ireland Office. Surely that disclosure makes a nonsense of the suggestion that even an elite segment of the board could prevent such high-level disclosures.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House on what he has done in an attempt to ensure that sensitive matters are not discussed at meetings of the board. But he has an impossible task. At this time, I do not see how a policing board could operate without referring to sensitive matters. The basic problem is that the Policing Board was set up on the assumption that we would be at peace, as the noble Lord, Lord Cilentoran, mentioned. That surely makes a nonsense of the whole arrangement. If we were at peace, everything would be all right, but we are not. We are assuming that members of a political party that, by its own declaration, is at war with the Government may become members of the Policing Board. Surely they will be bound to hear sensitive matters no matter what is done. We are setting out to do something impossible.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I apologise, particularly to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal, for my slightly late arrival on the Bench. I would like to have heard everything that he said in introducing these amendments. Having arrived home at around midnight last night, after a day of local government business, and then left at 5 a.m. to catch a plane to come here, I was disconcerted to find so many government amendments on the Marshalled List. Although I do not have a legal mind, they appear convoluted and difficult to decipher.
Initially, I was happy to find that a point made at several stages in the passage of the Bill had been taken on board in proposed subsection (4C), which refers to,
"information the disclosure of which would be likely to put an individual in danger".
My relief was short-lived, because I then discovered that a sub-committee of the board was to be set up if the Chief Constable decided that information of particularly sensitive significance was required. I understand that all members will be bound by the Official Secrets Act. But let us be honest: if someone such as ex-prisoner, ex-murderer Gerry Kelly, who is now an Assembly Member for a Belfast constituency, became a member of the board—when Sinn Fein decides to come on to it—can anyone imagine a decision being taken to charge him with an infringement of the Official Secrets Act? In this instance, we know that the guarantee about the Official Secrets Act is not worth the paper which it is written on.
The idea that the board of 19 members will elect five of their peers to form the sub-committee is no consolation. I am being signalled to conclude. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and I
1256
apologise but I have had only a short time to study the amendments. The five members of the board elected by their peers to receive this sensitive information are bound to include a Sinn Fein member. I would be sceptical to hear that it is possible to exclude Sinn Fein or anyone with a paramilitary link who can be a member of the board on the grounds that they are elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly. It would simply not be possible. So, it does not matter whether we convey the information to a committee of five members of the board, one of whom is untrustworthy, or whether we convey confidential information to the whole board. It makes not the slightest difference.
I do not want to labour the point any further. As I came here today, I determined that I would speak briefly. I have spoken at some length about my concerns that the Bill is being rushed through. It will go to another place in the minimum time and will be back with us in the minimum time for the simple reason that certain things must be put in place to facilitate Sinn Fein, which may, in late February or early March, make a decision that will be deemed to be a commitment to the peace process, to the 1998 agreement and to the Mitchell principles. It will not be that, unless we have what are now called "acts of completion". Those acts must not be gestures; there must be total disarmament by paramilitary organisations in turn. In this case, as we are catering for IRA/Sinn Fein, I am talking specifically about them. Acts of completion must be total disarmament and disbandment. We cannot any longer allow people to have one foot in the democratic camp and one in the paramilitary camp.
I say that, I hope, for the last time today. I hope that the point is getting through that the Bill is being put through in its present form by the Government simply to facilitate Sinn Fein/IRA and for no other reason. I have always wanted and have always worked in public life to move Northern Ireland forward. I have always worked for reconciliation, in the hope that our two traditions will come together and be given the opportunity to do that in a normal society. It cannot be a normal society, if we tweak the democratic processes in a way that is intended to reassure but, in fact, makes those of us who have been at the coalface for so long all the more suspicious about the Government's real intention.
11.45 a.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the observations that your Lordships have offered. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, has doubts about Sinn Fein being on the board, but many of your Lordships wish to see the day when Sinn Fein is on the board. Many of the noble Lord's observations about Sinn Fein would lead logically to the conclusion that, if we are to have a board, we should do our utmost not to have Sinn Fein on it. The noble Lord knows that I am fond of him personally, but I must disagree profoundly with his approach.

1257
The committee is a small committee of five members. We have tried to meet the concerns ventilated earlier, which I recognise as justified. There is no barrier to anyone being on that small committee except that no one can get on it without having the support of his or her fellow board members. One of the members will be the chairman, and the committee may also include the vice-chairman and three others.
It is not a question of favouritism, to address the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead. We want to ensure that the smallest sensible number of people has access to the most sensitive information. That is not unreasonable, is it? It is a general principle. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, will know as well as I that not every matter goes to every Cabinet member. Sometimes, it is appropriate to have a small sub-group or sub-committee to deal with particular matters. I had thought that your Lordships would commend us on having done our best to meet the concerns that were expressed. It seems practical and reasonable to have a small group in those circumstances.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, asked about how the committee would take account of views. The Chief Constable and that small committee would want to discuss the nature and format of the summary, including the views of the small committee on how much information it is appropriate to share more widely. That is why that provision is included. The criminal sanction for disclosure is in the Bill and is not to be found in other legislation.
The provision can be made to work. In the nature of things, it is bound to be a compromise; I commend it to your Lordships as a reasonable and rational one.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 3 and 4:
Page 6, line 12, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
"(3) In subsection (4) for the words from "in order to" to the end substitute "for either or both of the purposes mentioned in subsection (4A)."
(3A) After subsection (4) insert—
"(4A) The purposes are—

(a) exempting the Chief Constable from the obligation to report to the Board information which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, ought not to be disclosed on any of the grounds mentioned in section 76A(1);

(b) imposing on the Chief Constable an obligation to supply any such information to the committee constituted by the Board under paragraph 24(1A) of Schedule 1.

(4B) Subsection (4D) applies if—

(a) a requirement to submit a report has been made under subsection (1);

(b) the Chief Constable has not referred the requirement to the Secretary of State under subsection (3);

(c) the Chief Constable is of the opinion that a report in compliance with the requirement would include information of a kind mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (4C).

(4C) The information is—
1258

(a)information the disclosure of which would be likely to put an individual in danger, or

(b) information which ought not to be disclosed on any of the grounds mentioned in section 76A(1).

(4D) The Chief Constable may, instead of including the information in the report to the Board, supply it to the committee constituted by the Board under paragraph 24(1A) of Schedule 1.
(4E) If the Chief Constable supplies information to the committee under subsection (4D) he shall include a summary of it in the report to the Board.
(4F) In preparing a summary under subsection (4E) the Chief Constable shall take into account the views of the committee.
(4G) Subsection (4H) applies if—

(a) the Chief Constable supplies information to the committee under subsection (4D), or

(b) the Chief Constable includes information in a report to the Board and is of the opinion that the information is information of a kind mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (4C).

(4H) The Chief Constable must—

(a) inform the Secretary of State that the information has been included in a report to the Board or supplied to the committee;

(b) inform the Secretary of State and the recipient of the information that, in his opinion, the information is information of a kind mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (4C).""

Page 6, line 13, leave out "(3)" and insert "(3A)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 9 [Inquiries by Board]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 5 to 7:
Page 6, line 25, leave out "and (3)" and insert "to (3A)"
Page 6, line 33, at end insert—
"(3A) After subsection (10) insert—
"(10A) Subsection (10B) applies if the Chief Constable supplies to a person conducting an inquiry under this section any information which in the opinion of the Chief Constable is—

(a) information the disclosure of which would be likely to put an individual in danger, or

(b) information which ought not to be disclosed on any of the grounds mentioned in section 76A(1).

(10B) The Chief Constable must—

(a) inform the Secretary of State and the Board that the information has been supplied to the person conducting the inquiry;

(b) inform the Secretary of State, the Board and the person conducting the inquiry that, in his opinion, the information is information of a kind mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (10A).""

Page 6, line 34, leave out "(3)" and insert "(3A)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 10 [Approval of proposals relating to inquiries by Board]:
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass Lord Maginnis of Drumglass moved Amendment No. 8:
Leave out Clause 10.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 8 is a simple amendment, and noble Lords will not want me to go on at any length about it. I have already said, at every stage, that it is nonsensical to suggest, along

1259
with all the other changes that have been made, that as few as eight members from a board of 19 should have the absolute right to demand an inquiry.
If, as we are told by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal, the board will be a responsible board, it would not be unreasonable to expect that at least 50 per cent-plus of its members would be needed to decide that an inquiry was necessary. I have been at the coalface for 30 years, and I know the nature of terrorism and the way in which terrorists and their political acolytes operate. We should not create a position in which, through undue pressure amounting even to intimidation, independent members of the board could be influenced or find themselves with no alternative but to go along with pressure from Sinn Fein. We should not condone or assist such a process. We should stick with the original figure of 10, on the basis that we expect that much of the work of the board will be done by mutual agreement. We should not allow a situation in which a caucus of less than 50 per cent can decide the board's direction.
This is such a petty approach to the work of the board that I feel that it is necessary to seek the opinion of your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, on this issue. It is the one remaining issue—I do not want to pre-empt anything that might arise later—that I believe is a serious mistake in the Bill. There is no reason whatever for it. Those who have been pressing to reduce this quorate number from 10 to eight members—less than 50 per cent—are totally unreasonable and must have mischievous reasons for wanting to do so.
Northern Ireland is a small place. People know each other well. They take their responsibilities seriously. There is no reason whatever—on any occasion, for any specific topic—why at least 10 of the 19 members of the Northern Ireland Policing Board should not be expected to be present and voting, as I believe the Bill states, on matters such as those related to in Clause 10.
I strongly believe that it is utterly wrong of the Government to reduce the number of members to a figure that is less than 50 per cent, and which requires a majority of five—something like 30 per cent. The board would fall into a category where political cliques could gang up and achieve measures which it would not want. I support the amendment.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I strongly support Amendment No. 8 because I believe that it is essential to build in as many safeguards as possible to protect the ability of the police to function at all, but especially in the field of counter-terrorism should Sinn Fein/IRA join the Policing Board in the foreseeable future.
The agenda of Sinn Fein/IRA has always been to destroy the police in their present form. They have openly said so and openly campaigned against people entering the Catholic 50 per cent. Gerry Adams said, when the people of Omagh appealed to him to free witnesses to speak, that he would never do that since he did not recognise British courts or British justice.
1260
The Northern Ireland Office, in its last performance report published in autumn 2002, quotes two of its main objectives as being to build and,
"sustain confidence in the police service"
and to,
"narrow the gap in confidence in policing and policing arrangements between the two main communities … while maintaining the overall level of public service".
They are admiral objectives, but I do not think that they will be attained in a hurry.
The Northern Ireland Office survey showed that 66 per cent of Protestants and 75 per cent of Catholics thought that the Policing Board was doing a good job. As the noble and learned Lord knows, I agree with that. With the establishment of the DPPs, they hoped that matters would get even better.
Surely, there is something to be said for giving the Policing Board, as at present composed, time to settle and consolidate rather than pressing on for purely political reasons to enable Sinn Fein/IRA to enter a body where their very presence will instantly strike a blow at the public confidence, which we are seeking, in a police entity, penetrated from within, by the very terrorists that it is attempting to police.
There must be time for Sinn Fein to demonstrate that it is no longer a Siamese twin of the IRA. It has not yet done so. To bring Sinn Fein/IRA into the Policing Board will utterly destroy the confidence of the public and the police themselves. I know that the noble and learned Lord will say that that is not what we are discussing today, but we are. This is the last chance we have to create safeguards. It is relevant that the NIO report covering the period 2001 to September 2002 records an overall increase in major security incidents and an increase in violence against the person. The latest report from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, on the operation of the Terrorism Act 2000 records that,
"there remains a significant supply of weaponry available to paramilitaries of all persuasions, that there has been an increase in incidents involving bombs to the 1987–89 level, that the police need to remain flexible to meet changes in the patterns of terrorist-related crime, and that the continuing danger of intimidation of those called for jury service justifies the continued scheduling of offences".
Incidentally, the report notes, which people often forget, that an analogous system has obtained for some time in the Republic of Ireland. The report also recommends the retention of the Diplock courts. It states:
"It remains clear without any evidence or abatement that the paramilitary organisations still exercise very significant influence over communities. On both sides of the divide there is a clear danger of intimidation within living and working neighbourhoods".
It is not yet the time to implement the Patten report in full. Northern Ireland is not at peace. There must be time to consolidate and the Policing Board must be allowed to settle in. Sinn Fein/IRA must demonstrate that their eventual membership of the board will be justified by disarming their paramilitaries and ending their tyranny over their own people—just as the Loyalists must do.

1261
I am not speaking only against IRA paramilitaries, but I am suggesting that for them to play a part, through Sinn Fein, on the Policing Board would totally destroy confidence and would be a betrayal of the people.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, this is not a matter that goes to the Policing Board or who should be on it. It simply sets the threshold for those on the board who can call for an inquiry. I shall be brief; I have said this on a number of previous occasions. This was a commitment in the Implementation Plan as long ago as 2001. It simply indicates that an inquiry could be called for as long as there is a majority of those present and voting in agreement. I shall set out the figures. Normal board meetings run at 90 per cent attendance. They are well attended. To suggest that this could be manipulated by a small group of politically motivated people is unrealistic.
I shall remind your Lordships of the safeguards—I hope for the last time. Paragraph 18 of Schedule 1 to the 2000 Act states that if the board is considering the inquiry, at least three members of the board have to make a written request. The chairman, no later than three working days after the day on which he receives the request, has to call the meeting. The meeting cannot be held earlier than six days and no later than 21 working days afterwards. It is critically important that the chairman shall notify each member of the board of the date and purpose of the meeting. It is not therefore logistically possible for the scenario described in such Doomsday terms to occur. It still means that a majority of those present and voting must agree before such an inquiry could be called. There is a difference of approach here, which will not be reconciled, except following a vote.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, it is particularly disappointing that, after all the changes made to procedures in Northern Ireland, all the checks and balances that are built in, all the requirements of vetting and opportunity in terms of setting up the Policing Board, the Government should now decide that they want further to politicise the procedures of the board.
The board is already politicised in so far as membership is concerned. I shall not go into that issue in detail, but it does not take great imagination to understand what happens when the various political parties are asked to nominate their members to the board. That aspect of politicising policing—that is what we are doing—is further enhanced by removing that simple democratic process. Whatever the promises made by government, whether at Weston Park or anywhere else, they were in this respect wrong and undemocratic.
I shall seek to test the opinion of the House. During the Committee and Report stages some noble Lords voiced at least passing concern about equality in the treatment of the two traditions and of various political parties—not only mine—which have sought to behave
1262
traditionally in a democratic way. I hope that those who sympathise with that concern will support me on this issue.
12.1 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 100; Not-Contents, 122.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Jopling, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kimball, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Kirkham, L.

Attlee, E.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Liverpool, E.

Biffen, L.

Lucas, L.

Blaker, L.

Luke, L.

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Boothroyd, B.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Bowness, L.

L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

[Teller]

Bumham, L.

Marlesford, L.

Buscombe, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Montrose, D.

Carrington, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Noakes, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Crathorne, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Onslow, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Palmer, L.

Denham, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Patten, L.

Dundee, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Plumb, L.

Elles, B.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rawlings, B.

Elton, L.

Rees, L.

Fitt, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Flather, B.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Fookes, B.

Seccombe, B.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Glentoran, L.

Slim, V.

Greenway, L.

Strange, B.

Hanham, B.

Thatcher, B.

Henley, L.

Trefgame, L.

Higgins, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Vivian, L.

Howe, E.

Waddington, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Walpole, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Weatherill, L.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Wilcox, B.

Inge, L.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Addington, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Avebury, L.

Andrews, B.

Bach, L.

1263

Barnett, L.

Hylton, L.

Billingharn, B.

Jones, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jordan, L.

Borrie, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Lipsey, L.

Bragg, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Brennan, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brookman, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

[Teller]

Burlison, L.

Mackenzie of Culkein, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Maddock, B.

Carter, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Chester, Bp.

Marsh, L.

Christopher, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Methuen, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Morgan, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Crawley, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Northover, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Orme, L.

Desai, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Dixon, L.

Pendry, L.

Dubs, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Elder, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Radice, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Rea, L.

Gale, B.

Richard, L.

Gavron, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Roper, L.

Golding, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Goodhart, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Goudie, B.

Simon, V.

Greaves, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Grocott, L [Teller]

Stern, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Harrison, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Hollisof Heigham, B.

Tope, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

TordofT, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Whitty, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wilkins, B.

Hoyle, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Privy Seat)

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
12.11 p.m.
Clause 11 [Investigations into current police practices and policies]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 7 line 34, after "investigation," insert—
"(aa) his reasons for making that decision,"
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment explains itself. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, brought forward an amendment on Report which I promised to look at and possibly redraft. I hope that this amendment satisfies the noble Lord.
However, before formally moving the amendment, I should explain that when I said the ombudsman would have the power to deal with various complaints against designated civilians, including contracted-out staff, "as soon as commencement occurred", I was wrong. It is "when the appropriate regulations are brought forward". I formally correct that. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 10 to 12:
Page 8, leave out lines 15 and 16 and insert "is information of a kind mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (4)."
Page 8, line 21, leave out from "information" to end of line 22 and insert "is information of a kind mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (4)."
Page 8, line 22, at end insert—
"(4) The information referred to in subsections (2) and (31) is —

(a) information the disclosure of which would be likely to put an individual in danger;

(b) information which ought not to be disclosed on any of the grounds mentioned in section 76A(1).""

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 17 [Provision of information to Board]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 10, line 19, at end insert—
"(3) Subsection (4) applies if the Chief Constable is of the opinion that information which he would otherwise be required to supply to the Board under subsection (1) is information the disclosure of which would be likely to put an individual in danger.
(4) The Chief Constable may, instead of supplying the information to the Board, supply it to the committee constituted by the Board under paragraph 24(1A) of Schedule 1.
(5) Subsection (6) applies if the Chief Constable supplies the Board or the committee with information which in his opinion is—

(a) information the disclosure of which would be likely to put an individual in danger, or

(b) information which ought not to be disclosed on any of the grounds mentioned in section 76A(1).

(6) The Chief Constable must—

(a) inform the Secretary of State that the information has been supplied to the Board or the committee;

(b) inform the Secretary of State and the recipient of the information that, in his opinion, the information is information of a kind mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (5)."

n Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause
"APPOINTMENTS TO THE POLICE SERVICE OF NORTHERN IRELAND
The Secretary of State may, at the request of a majority of the Policing Board, and acting on the recommendation of the Chief Constable, by order —

(a) permit the Chief Constable to appoint to the Police Service of Northern Ireland persons of any rank from other constabularies within the United Kingdom as he deems appropriate; and

(b) permit the Chief Constable, as he deems appropriate, in making an appointment under paragraph (a), to exempt those persons from such entry procedures as are normally applicable to direct appointees to the Police Service of Northern Ireland."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment represents another attempt to allow the Chief Constable to appoint to the Police Service of Northern Ireland persons of any rank. At the moment there are problems with the number of serving officers. The Chief Constable has quite significant gaps in his force, about which I know he is concerned.
I can be very brief because I am seeking only reassurance. I understand that, as the law stands, the Chief Constable can do what my amendment seeks he should be able to do. Section 98(1) of the Police Act 1996 states:
"The chief officer of a police force in England or Wales may, on the application of the chief officer of a police force in Scotland or the chief constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, provide constables or other assistance for the purpose of enabling the Scottish force or the Royal Ulster Constabulary to meet any special demand on its resources".
If that provision still stands—and I have no reason to believe that it does not—I shall have no more to say. But, as we are at Third Reading, if it does not stand I shall be in a slightly embarrassing situation. I beg to move.
12.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the amendment is defective. Paragraph (a) would allow the Chief Constable to appoint to the Police Service of Northern Ireland persons of any rank. Under the 2000 Act, appointments at assistant chief constable level and above are not for the Chief Constable but for the Policing Board. I am obliged to point out that defect in the amendment.
More fundamentally—and this goes to the heart of the matter—if the amendment is agreed to, the Secretary of State would be able to appoint police officers of any rank. I have dealt with that point.
I hope I can reassure your Lordships—particularly the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran—that the amendment is not necessary. Police officers from other United Kingdom police services of the rank of sergeant and above are not subject to the 50:50 requirement, which applies only to entrants at trainee—that is, constable—level. So, subject to the usual constraints, the Chief Constable can make as many appointments as he likes of sergeants, inspectors, and so on up to
1266
chief superintendent, from other United Kingdom police services. And, as I said, the Policing Board may do likewise in respect of senior officers.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is right, Section 98 of the 1996 Act still provides for secondment—but on a short-term basis only. I believe that meets the noble Lord's point because it is the possible short-term gap that he seeks to identify and fill. So I am able to give him that reassurance. I am only able to give it because he asked a specific question—it had not been in my mind earlier—and I give it on the basis of the material provided to me.
Let me reiterate the last point that I made. If the Chief Constable and the Policing Board wanted to vary the 50:50 provisions we would give such a request serious consideration. But the noble Lord has put his finger on the fact that this is already dealt with in the point that he has researched.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that answer. Will he ensure that his officials make it clear to the Chief Constable and others that the section in the Police Act 1996 is available for their use? On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 14A:
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause—
"APPOINTMENTS TO THE POLICE SERVICE OF NORTHERN IRELAND (NO. 2)
In the event that—

(a) the Chief Constable is unable to appoint his required number of police trainees or police support staff, or

(b) the number of serving officers is below that intended at the time of consideration,

the Secretary of State shall, at the request of a majority of the Policing Board and acting on the recommendation of the Chief Constable, make an order to suspend the provisions of section 46 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) for a maximum period of six months."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 14A brings us back to a similar problem. I am still concerned that, for all the wrong reasons, the 50:50 provision is not working. I have no regrets about making it clear that my party still supports Patten and the 50:50 provision, but what we cannot support is a situation where recruitment into the PSNI, in line with Patten and the Government's legislation, is hijacked by none other than the IRA.
My officials told me yesterday, and the noble and learned Lord made it clear at Report stage, that recruitment of Catholics and Protestants on the 50:50 basis was going quite well in the early stages. But it is early days. The force is seriously short of able bodied men and women and, more importantly, the philosophy of bringing the force up to somewhere approaching the 50:50 requirement—which is good—has been hijacked by Sinn Fein/IRA.
I have tried, through a number of amendments—this is the last one—to persuade the Government to take on board in their legislation an amendment which

1267
could be used as a tool. Ultimately, all noble Lords in the Chamber know very clearly that this is more about politics, negotiations and deals than about producing a necessary set of amendments to the 2000 Act.
If the Government feel inclined to accept the amendment, it may never become necessary to use it, but it would be another tool in the armoury of Her Majesty's Government. It is my feeling that Her Majesty's Government have so far been fairly short of tools, or ploys. They played most of their cards rather early in the day and are significantly short of them. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I support the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. I do not believe that Patten is infallible and that every last word of the report is beyond reproach or question. In relation to other noble Lords, I have been in Parliament a comparatively short time, but during those 20 years I have never come across an instance of any report—even one by a Royal Commission—being accepted in its entirety. Indeed, if we arrived at the stage where we felt obliged to accept a report in its entirety, however commissioned, that would be damaging to the democratic process. The need for objective debate on the effects of the Patten report is important.
In introducing the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has highlighted the fact that, whatever its intention, it has not worked out in terms of numbers in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Far more people than intended—people of huge experience—have left the police service: some, sadly, disillusioned, others recognising that they were at a stage of life when they could not turn their backs on the opportunity to avail themselves of a compensation package. Whatever the cause, we have arrived at a situation where Northern Ireland is seriously under-policed—to the extent, as I pointed out on Report, that we no longer demand that applicants must meet a certain physical standard. It is the first time that I have ever been aware of applicants to any security force, police or military, not being required to meet such a standard prior to acceptance.
When I raised this matter on Report, the noble and learned Lord pointed out that there was a physical aspect to the training once a recruit arrived at a depot. The noble and learned Lord must worry, as I do, that if applicants are recruited to the Police Service of Northern Ireland on the understanding that the physical requirements are not defined and that they do not have to meet a certain standard, if a greater standard is then expected during training, they may well have genuine cause for complaint and may question the system in court.
We should continue to maintain the standards, and not be handicapped by the 50:50 provision. Although I cannot say on this occasion that I speak for every Unionist in Northern Ireland, recognising the need for as much equality in the police service as can be achieved, certainly equality of opportunity, I have not been very vocal in my opposition to the 50:50 provision. However, I believe that it should have been
1268
implemented in an entirely different way; that there should have been certain parameters within which that proviso should have been brought to bear. That said, if we are reaching a stage where to all intents and purposes we are making a laughing-stock of recruitment to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, it is not unreasonable that for short periods—in this case the implication is a period of six months at any one time—we should be able to set aside the provision in the Patten report in order to maintain the level of recruitment that will lead to the level of policing that the people of Northern Ireland expect. I commend. the amendment to the House.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, in the context of the reference to "police support staff" in my noble friend's amendment, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal will recall an exchange about support staff on Report (at col. 874). The noble and learned Lord's reply is set out in col. 877. My noble kinsman Lord Brookeborough intervened to say that there was a difference of opinion as to when the Chief Constable had made his remarks about support staff. In the absence of my noble kinsman, I merely want to know whether the difference of opinion regarding the facts has been resolved in the interim in a bilateral discussion about which I know nothing. The point is germane to the issue of police support staff recruitment.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I have declared my support twice already during debates on the Bill for the principle of 50:50 recruitment. However, today, I ask the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House whether he would consider a slight modification of the principle—possibly to produce a 42:42:16 ratio. The 16 is intended to cover people who are atheists, agnostics or adherents of various minority religions outside the broad Catholic and Protestant traditions of the country. Some slight modification of that kind would be much better than suspending the operation of the main principle, as is suggested in the amendment.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I feel compelled to support the amendment. It is honest and realistic, and takes into account all the circumstances in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that it represents an attack on the Patten report or an attempt to undermine its recommendations.
I have had many reservations about the 50:50 provision. I do not believe it to be realistic. It seems to generate the belief that there are many Catholics in Northern Ireland who want to join the new police service. I do not believe that to be the case. Not every individual wants to become a policeman. Given the history of Northern Ireland and the dangers under which policemen have to live, it is highly unlikely that there will be a great influx of Catholics into the PSNI.
The amendment suggests that if there is not a sufficient number of Catholics wanting to join the police force in Northern Ireland to make it possible to meet the 50:50 requirement, the Chief Constable could say that the force could take other people who are not

1269
of the Catholic faith. By the way, I have said repeatedly that this is not about Catholics and Protestants; it is about nationalists and unionists. People are not going to join or be rejected from the police force on account of their religion; it is because of what their political allegiance is likely to be.
If there is not a great influx of nationalists wanting to join the PSNI, the police force will be undermanned. We do not have sufficient numbers in the police force at the moment. Looking to the future, it will be necessary to have a police force that is able to deal adequately with all the circumstances in Northern Ireland. We need a higher level of policing than any other part of the United Kingdom.
The amendment is not a Tory or Unionist attack on Patten. I am neither, but I have lived all my life in Northern Ireland. I foresee great difficulties in restricting recruitment in Northern Ireland until there are a sufficient number of Catholics—or nationalists—wanting to join the police force. If the necessary figure is not arrived at and we do not have the numbers that we expect, when the Chief Constable determines what he believes to be the necessary complement of his force to engage with all the possibilities of what may happen in Northern Ireland he should have the right to depart from the principles laid down in Patten.
12.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall deal with one or two misconceptions. We dealt with fitness on Report. I made it plain that the physical competence test will not be applied to applicants in the current recruitment competition, but I hope that I also made it plain that all trainees will be required to pass the test before they are attested. In other words, there is no reduction in the standard of physical competence required of police officers. Trainees are simply given more time to reach the required standard.
Of course there is intimidation. Gerry Kelly has already been referred to. On 26th September 2002, he said:
"I am making it directly clear now that there should be no intimidation or threats against new recruits".
On 25th September, on the Radio Ulster 3 p.m. news, he said,
"we have made it clear in the past and we make it directly clearer now, there should be no intimidation or threats against any recruits involved here".
I do not think he could have put that plainer.
The issue of support staff was resolved. The Chief Constable's remarks were made after his first 100 days in service, but the campaign to which he referred had been in the spring and summer of 2002, before Grafton started work. The noble Viscount was good enough to say that I was right and that he had misunderstood the situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, spoke of Roman Catholics and Protestants. I remind your Lordships, as I think I said on Report, that Section 46 of the 2000 Act says:
1270
"one half shall be persons who are treated as Roman Catholic; and
one half shall be persons who are not so treated".
The Act does not speak of Roman Catholics and Protestants.
Is 50:50 working? If it were not to work, do we need a change in the law? The answer to the first question is yes and the answer to the second question is no. We have had a very good response to the police recruitment campaigns. The appointment of sufficient qualified candidates to fill the police training college is at a level around 50 per cent above that envisaged by Patten. Grafton Recruitment was appointed only in September 2002. It deals with civilians and has produced enough candidates to meet the requirements.
On the second question, Section 46(3) of the 2000 Act already gives the Secretary of State the power to make a set-aside order. Section 46(2) says:
"The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Board and the Chief Constable, by order amend subsection (1)"—
that is the 50:50 provision—
"in its application to the making of appointments under section 39".
Before making such an order, he has to consult the Policing Board and the Chief Constable. The discretionary power is already there, so the amendment is not needed. In any event, we are doing well. Something optimistic is happening. We ought to rejoice.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that response. I had half expected that he would assure me that the amendment was not required and I am delighted that it is not.
On Report we spoke about the intolerable conditions at the Garnerville training centre. Your Lordships will be delighted to know that I read yesterday that a new training centre has gone to the top of the list of priorities of the Policing Board and the Chief Constable and they are urgently moving to try to find something. I am not sure whether the noble and learned Lord had something to do with that, but he is smiling. If he did, I thank him and his officials for taking action.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 15 and 16:
Before Clause 19, insert the following new clause—
"RESTRICTION ON DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION
After section 74 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) insert—
"74A RESTRICTION ON DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION
(1) This section applies if information is supplied in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (2), (3) or (4).
(2) The circumstances are that—

(a) the information is supplied by the Chief Constable to a person conducting an inquiry under section 60;

1271

(b) the person has been appointed under section 60(9) to conduct the inquiry;

(c) the Chief Constable informs the person that, in his opinion, the information is information of a kind mentioned in section 60(10A)(a) or (b).

(3) The circumstances are that—

(a) the information is supplied by the Chief Constable under section 33A or 59 to the Board or the committee constituted by the Board under paragraph 24(1A) of Schedule 1;

(b) the Chief Constable informs the Board or the committee under section 33A(6) or 59(4H) that, in his opinion, the information is information of a kind mentioned in section 33A(5)(a) or (b) or section 59(4C)(a) or (b).

(4) The circumstances are that—

(a) the information is supplied by a person conducting an inquiry under section 60 to the committee constituted by the Board under paragraph 24(1A) of Schedule 1;

(b) the information was supplied to the person conducting the inquiry in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (2).

(5) If information is supplied in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (2), the information must not be disclosed by the person who is conducting or has conducted the inquiry or by a person who is or has been a member of staff of the Board except—

(a) to a member of the staff of the Board who is assisting in the conduct of the inquiry;

(b) to the Secretary of State;

(c) to the Chief Constable;

(d) to the Ombudsman in connection with an investigation under section 60A of the 1998 Act;

(e) to the committee constituted by the Board under paragraph 24(1A) of Schedule 1;

(f) for the purposes of any criminal, civil or disciplinary proceedings;

(g) in the form of a summary or other general statement made by the person the terms of which have been agreed with the Chief Constable.

(6) If information is supplied in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (3) or (4), the information must not be disclosed by a person who is or has been a member of the Board or a member of the staff of the Board except—

(a) in the case of information supplied to the Board, to a member of the Board or a member of the staff of the Board;

(b) in the case of information supplied to the committee constituted by the Board under paragraph 24(1A) of Schedule 1, to a member of the committee or a member of staff of the Board who provides services to the committee;

(c) to the Secretary of State;

(d) to the Chief Constable;

(e) to the Ombudsman in connection with an investigation under section 60A of the 1998 Act;

(f) for the purposes of any criminal, civil or disciplinary proceedings;

(g) in the form of a summary or other general statement made by the Board the terms of which have been agreed with the Chief Constable.

(7) Any person who discloses information in contravention of this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(8) In this section "member of the staff of the Board" means—

(a) a person employed by the Board under paragraph 13(1) of Schedule 1;

1272

(b) a person employed in the civil service who provides assistance for the Board in pursuance of arrangements made under paragraph 13(2) of Schedule 1.""

Before Clause 19, insert the following new clause—
"SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD
(1) Paragraph 24 of Schedule 1 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) (committees of the Board) is amended as set out in subsections (2) and (3).
(2) In sub-paragraph (1) after "The Board may" insert ", subject to sub-paragraphs (IA) and (1B)".
(3) After sub-paragraph (1) insert—
"(1A) The Board shall constitute a committee of 5 of its members for the purpose of—

(a) handling information supplied to it by the Chief Constable under section 33A or 59;

(b) performing such other functions of the Board as may be delegated to it by the Board.

(1B) The members of the committee constituted under subparagraph (1A)—

(a) shall be appointed by the Board;

(b) shall include the chairman or vice-chairman of the Board (or both of them);

(c) shall as far as practicable be representative of the Board.

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 19 [Disclosure of information and holding of inquiries]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 17 and 18:
Page 11, line 9, leave out from second "information" to end of line 11.
Page 11, line 18, leave out from first "matter" to end of line 19.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 11, line 21, at end insert—
"( ) Where it appears to the Chief Constable that the disclosure of information under section 59 or the holding of an inquiry under section 60 would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, he may refer any such request to Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another attempt to solve in advance any problems that might arise out of the Chief Constable not wishing to give information to the Policing Board for the reasons stated in the amendment. These are the most important and crunchy two or three lines that are wrong in the Bill.
We have all spoken to the issue a number of times. The noble and learned Lord graciously spoke to me before we came into the Chamber. I understand that he has some positive news for me. I beg to move.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, if there is some positive news to come, that will be further cause to rejoice. I do not wish to postpone unduly the time at which noble Lords can indulge in it. However, I want to allude to the time spent in Committee and on Report dealing with the removal by Clause 19 of one of the grounds that the 2000 Act allowed the Chief Constable to rest upon when deciding that the board's request for a report on a certain matter would be

1273
inappropriate because it would involve making public information that would be prejudicial either to the detection or prevention of crime or to the apprehension or conviction of an offender.
That ground was accorded to the Chief Constable in the 2000 Act and is taken away by Clause 19 of this Bill. We have spent a great deal of time trying to elicit the reason for the change. It is important that the reason should be made clear, because suspicion is never far below the surface in Northern Ireland. If the perception is held that there is some undisclosed reason why a provision so recently accorded in government legislation is being removed two years later, confidence in the arrangements for which the Bill is responsible will be undermined. I know the noble and learned Lord will not want that to be the case.
We have asked why the change is being made. The debate has assumed an almost theological character. The noble and learned Lord has wrapped himself in the cloak of what I might call the book of Patten. He said that Patten required this measure and that, even if it did not, another text called the Implementation Plan, which we understand to have been written not later than July 2001, foretells it. Because it was foretold, the change has to be made so that the scripture may be fulfilled.
On the other hand, my noble friend Lord Glentoran spoke to this insight—that it must be wrong to force a Chief Constable who believes that it would be prejudicial on the grounds given to make the information public, or, at least, to give it to the board. There has been no movement on that matter. This is not the time for close textual analysis or, indeed, for any analysis, but I record my respectful opinion that Patten does not require the Government to make the change. If it did require that, how come the Government did not make it in 2000, but legislated as they did?
I cannot conceal my opinion that there are grounds for considerable suspicion here, which will certainly be held in Northern Ireland. I speak diffidently in the presence of those who come from that Province, but a suspicion will certainly be held, and it will centre on the idea that the change has been asked for from a certain quarter. That quarter would be Sinn Fein. We should know whether it has been asked for, or not. I would not regard it as self-evidently wrong that it should be accorded if it had been asked for from any quarter, but we should know if it has been.
That is why my noble friend's amendment should be supported. It is a clever middle way that enables the Government to get round the problem. I hope that they do what they have declined to do so far—namely, clear up any suspicion.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I cannot articulate with the authority of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, the points that he has just made. From a practical point of view, I can underpin what he said by indicating that there are three specific
1274
circumstances in which the absence will be felt of the fourth condition on which the Chief Constable can refuse to give information.
In Northern Ireland, we are in the process of setting up a criminal assets bureau under the leadership of Assistant Chief Constable McQuillan. The bureau will work particularly closely with the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Its work may not yield results overnight; in other words, it will be engaged in a slow and laborious process. If the Chief Constable is, by virtue of demands for information, obliged to reveal information that is part of an ongoing inquiry of the bureau, we might as well not set the bureau up in the first place. It would be a question of forfeiting vital and important information that may make Northern Ireland a much safer place in the long run.
We will not build a peaceful and lawful society overnight. It will require a huge amount of hard work by a lot of people, who must have confidence that the authorities in Northern Ireland—be they the police, the criminal assets bureau or whatever—are absolutely and totally committed, without any hindrance, to helping them to achieve their aims.
Directly in line with the police service's responsibility to the public is the sort of activity in Northern Ireland that we saw illustrated in a programme a couple of nights ago, which dealt with loyalist criminality. Drugs and prostitution were used to create huge wealth for a small group of quite evil people in the loyalist community. Of course, I wish that the situation was different, but we cannot ignore the fact that there is still illegal politically motivated activity being carried out by loyalists, the Real IRA and that other bunch—
Noble Lords: The Continuity IRA.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: Yes, My Lords, the Continuity IRA. In any of those cases, the Chief Constable has not only a responsibility but a professional duty to protect information that would hinder the protection or prevention of any of the forms of crime that I mentioned. For that reason, it is incumbent on government to give serious consideration to the amendment, and to put back the fourth of the four conditions that previously governed the Chief Constable's ability to give or withhold information.
12.45 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I take advantage of the last amendment in the list to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he can give any indication today when the complex legislation that governs policing in Northern Ireland is likely to be consolidated. If he cannot reply to that now, he might write to me. It might be helpful to practitioners and people who must interpret statutes if consolidation could take place fairly soon.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am only sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, is

1275
not in his place, because he constantly makes that plea. I sympathise with it, but the difficulty with consolidation is that there is then the overwhelming temptation, not in the Northern Ireland Office but in departments that some of us can remember, to have another Bill, which means that one has to have another consolidation. However, I take the noble Lord's point, not least because of the intricate amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred.
I cannot usefully do anything further by way of explaining the Government's position. We have spent a good deal of time on it. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, says that I refer to the book of Patten, and I would not want to tease him by saying that he is referring to the book of Apocrypha. However, I respectfully agree that neither of them has to have the status of holy writ.
I have tried to take on board the serious debate and discussions that we had in Grand Committee and on Report. I never thought that there were not serious issues to consider. As I have said before, Section 59 of the 2000 Act contains the mechanism whereby the Chief Constable and the board can come to a compromise. In other words. the Chief Constable is supposed to respond in one month, but with the caveat allowing a longer period, which may be agreed between the Chief Constable and the board.
What we have done—and I hope that noble Lords will agree that we have made genuine efforts to meet concerns—is to go back to Section 27 of the 2000 Act. I did not have the opportunity to mention the present state of affairs to all your Lordships but I mentioned it to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. Section 27(1)(a) provides that the Secretary of State can issue a code of practice on conduct by the board with regard to any of its functions. I hope to have picked up the spirit of the amendment and the spirit of what your Lordships have said. We propose to provide through the code of practice that if the board and the Chief Constable cannot agree in the circumstances which I defined a moment or two ago, and where the Chief Constable's concerns relate to the impact of a particular timescale on the police's ability to prevent or detect crime, the board can refer the matter to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary for his advice. The board would be able to take account of the recommendation in finally determining the deadline.
I hope that your Lordships will consider that at least we have attempted to meet concerns. I hope that your Lordships therefore will not insist upon the amendment
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that response which certainly goes some way to relieve my concerns. Time in these matters can always be extremely helpful provided the facility to use it is available. The amendment the Government made to the Bill opens yet another avenue to the Chief Constable if he feels strongly about the matter of divulging sensitive information. He now has two or three avenues open to him. There are various ways in which he can waste or spend time in a positive way.
1276
That can be valuable as, while that time is being wasted, the information is being protected. That is extremely helpful.
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I thank those who supported the amendments I tabled. I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for his patience and for his consideration of the matters that have been debated. I also thank the officials. The Bill has been seriously argued and debated over several days. I hope that we shall be judged to have done a good job in your Lordships' House in editing, amending and scrutinising a serious and complicated Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord moves the Motion that the Bill do now pass, I should say how much we on these Benches appreciated his patience and skill in taking the Bill through all its stages. It is a complicated Bill and a number of noble Lords raised serious concerns. I thank the noble and learned Lord's officials for the helpful guidance they provided.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, it is appropriate, in so far as this Bill is concerned with a Northern Ireland issue, that I should join the noble Lords who have thanked the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. I certainly admire, and have benefited from, his courtesy. I am not sure that I am as full of praise for his skill as the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. I had hoped that his undoubted skill would have enabled some changes to be made. However, that is a matter for another time and another place. The noble and learned Lord has been most courteous, as always. For that I am grateful.
An amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in debates on the Bill. We have done our work properly. The Grand Committee was of great benefit to all of us in enabling us to ventilate the issues. I am grateful for all the kind comments that noble Lords have made, but in particular for the well justified plaudits for the officials in the Northern Ireland Office who work under tremendous pressure. I do not refer to pressure exerted by noble Lords but to that often exerted by events.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question. Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 12.55 to 2 p.m. for Judicial Business and to 3 p.m. for Public Business.]

Hospitals: Emergency Readmissions
Lord Astor of Heverasked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have to address the increasing number of elderly patients who are readmitted to hospital within a month of being discharged.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, information collected over the past few years suggests that the rate of emergency readmissions has remained stable. The National Service Framework for Older People will improve the quality of hospital care for older people. Better quality of treatment in hospital, and better support for patients when they have returned home, should result in a lower rate of patients being readmitted as an emergency.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, despite the Minister's response, all the statistics show the percentage of emergency readmissions rising, and rising fast. The Government have already announced the incentive of hefty fines for local authorities as regards the delayed discharge of patients. When will that be introduced for NHS trusts?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord's assessment of the figures. The truth is that they bib and bob around. For instance, in quarter four of 1997–98, the figure for readmissions for over-75s was 7.1 per cent. In the same quarter of 2001–02, the figure was 7.2 per cent. There are variations over that four to five-year period.
The delayed discharge Bill, which the House is debating at the moment, has been brought forward to provide the right incentives for local authorities and the NHS to get their act together, so that quick assessments take place with ample notice to local authorities. That should enable proper planning, proper discharge procedures and more support available for people to go back into the community.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in evidence given to the Select Committee on Health last year it became apparent that older people discharged from hospital on a Friday were three times more likely than those discharged between Mondays and Thursdays to undergo emergency readmission? In view of that can he explain why, under the delayed discharge Bill, the Government will compel older people to be discharged at weekends?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the point about the delayed discharge Bill is that older people stuck unnecessarily in hospital can become institutionalised. The outcome for them can be very negative. That is why we have brought the Bill
1278
forward. The intention is that local authorities will be informed far quicker than often they are now that an older person will require assessment. That will enable proper assessments to take place. As a result of those proper assessments, more facilities and support can be made available in the community. The noble Baroness will know that we have also intimated that we will transfer £100 million in a full year to help local authorities to put those services into place.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, is it not true that the delayed discharges fines Bill will provide a massive incentive for NHS trusts to discharge elderly patients early, because it is in their financial interests to start collecting fines from local authorities?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords, it is not a fines Bill. It is an incentives Bill.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Oh yes, my Lords. The incentives will be there to encourage both the NHS and local government to do better than they do now. We are transferring £100 million in a full year. That is the estimated cost to local authorities of dealing with the average figure of 5,000 older people whose discharges are delayed at the moment because local authorities have not got their act together.
So far as perverse incentives are concerned, I do not agree with the noble Baroness. It cannot be in the interests of the NHS to discharge people before they should be discharged.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the readmission of elderly people to hospital is often a result of the breakdown of the carers—of the families who look after them? Will he therefore confirm that he will continue to encourage local authorities and social services departments to provide extra services to help those carers?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly agree that it is very important that we continue the progress in providing greater support to carers. We will do that. The noble Baroness will know that amendments made in another place to the delayed discharges Bill have reassured the carers' association as to its position under the legislation.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, in support of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, I want to ask the Minister whether any study has been done about the effect on elderly patients brought back into their own homes from the security of hospital. From feeling that no matter what happens to them they will be looked after, they suddenly have an emotional response and do not feel secure at home any longer. Therefore, is any counselling service available to those elderly people to make them feel better once they are reintegrated in their own homes?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness has raised an important point. Clearly, if as

1279
a result of the assessment it is considered better for an older person to go back into their own home, it is important that the right services are available. In the first few days when it is particularly difficult, it is also important that all due support is given. As regards research, we have the National Centre for Health Outcomes Development, which is looking into the issue of readmissions at the moment. I hope that that will provide more information. We have also made available £2 million for further research into older people's services. We are inviting bids at the moment in that area.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—
Baroness Warnock: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Cross Bench!
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's last answer, which was very sympathetic towards older people returning home, is he aware that it is in the last degree unlikely that older people returning from hospital on a Friday—that has been mentioned as a problem—will be able to get any help at all on a Saturday or Sunday? Perhaps the Minister could assure us that that will be looked into.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly understand that point. The criticisms that are often made of current discharge procedures are: first, that the NHS is very late in notifying local authorities that a particular patient is ready for discharge; secondly, that discharge then takes place very rapidly; and thirdly, that the proper community support services are not available. The delayed discharge Bill, in which there is clearly a great deal of interest, ensures: first, that the local authority gets due notification; secondly, that an assessment and care package has to be made and put in place within three days; and thirdly, that 24-hour notice is given of discharge. The point that the noble Baroness raises about Saturdays and Sundays and the preparedness of agencies to give support is very well taken.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, will the Minister say whether many readmissions are due to clinical misjudgment that has led to premature discharge from hospital? If that is the case, what can be done to improve the quality of clinical judgment?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the simple answer is that we do not know that. That is why the research by the National Centre for Health Outcomes Development to which I referred will be helpful in trying to pinpoint some of the causes. There is no doubt that part of dealing with the issue is to improve the quality and standards of care for older people in hospital. It is with that that the National Service Framework for Older People is concerned. If at the same time as improving care for older people in hospital we can improve the whole process of
1280
discharge procedures and after-care support, I believe that we shall be able to make an appreciable improvement in the current problem.

Israel
3.9 p.m.
Lord Blaker Lord Blaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they expect to make any change in policy towards Israel in light of the result of the election there.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, preliminary results show that the Likud Party won the most votes in the election. Mr Sharon will be invited to try to form a new government. We may not know the final make-up of the new government for some weeks. We want to work closely in the search for peace with the new Israeli Government, whatever the composition. In particular, we shall be looking for them to engage with the Palestinians and the international community on the implementation of the quartet road map within the time framework set out by President Bush on 24th June.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply, and especially for her reference to the work of the quartet. Es she aware that in his State of the Union speech two days ago, President Bush devoted only one short sentence to relations between Israel and the Palestinians? When the Prime Minister meets President Bush tomorrow, will he urge him to pay more attention to removing the suspicions of so many of the Arab countries that this matter is not of interest to the United States and that the United States tends to be less than impartial in its relations between the two sides? Would it not be a useful start if President Bush were to publish his road map for peace in the Middle East and if the Prime Minister did his best to discourage some of the senior advisers to President Bush from their belief that the removal of President Saddam Hussein by force would make the solution to the Israel-Palestinian problem easier?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, that the road map should be published as soon as possible. I am assured that the Middle East peace process will be part of the discussions that the Prime Minister will take part in with President Bush when he meets him this week. As the noble Lord will know from his experience in these matters, the United States has taken a great interest in the road map, which is the confidence-building process that is crucial to finding a negotiated settlement.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that she and I spent some 18 years opposing the elected government of this country and trying to get rid of them? If we recognise that Israel has elected its government, perhaps it would be right to bid

1281
them welcome and say that we will do all we can to advance the cause of peace which is so necessary for not only the Israelis but the Palestinians.
Baroness Crawley: Yes, my Lords, I agree with my noble friend that we will work closely with the new Israeli Government. It will be some weeks before we know the final outcome of the negotiations to form that government, but we will work closely with them on that road to peace.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, can we have every confidence that the Government will continue to push forward with their efforts to engage the Palestinian authorities as well as the Israelis in continuing peace discussions? Will the Government please make it clear again to the new Israeli Government, as they did to the old one, that banning travel rather than assisting authoritative Palestinian representatives to come to multilateral peace conferences does not help?
Baroness Crawley: Yes, my Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. We regretted the ban on travel for the Palestinian representatives to the London conference on Palestinian reforms. We want the Palestinian authorities to take very seriously the reforms that they signed up to at that conference. There is a new Palestinian commitment to work on its constitution. We expect an agreed outline in the next few days on work in progress on that constitution. As a result of the Palestinian reform conference, hosted by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in London earlier this month, we have a clear commitment to finalising preparations for free, fair and open elections. It has to be said that there was recognition of the work of the Palestinian authorities on financial accountability, which the Finance Minister has been working extremely hard to improve.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, which countries in the Middle East have free elections? Will the Prime Minister seek talks with the leader of the Likud Party and also the Labour Party, because they are members of the same International?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I cannot roll off the top of my head all the countries around the globe that have free and fair elections. In the Middle East, of course, Israel comes to mind. However, the British Government will work with all parties to negotiate a peace settlement.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the noble Baroness's replies to these questions have been welcome and positive. However, does she agree that while the matter of forming a new government in Israel is entirely a matter for the Israeli people, it would be good to see emerge some kind of centrally inclined coalition, including statesmen such as Shimon Peres?
1282
That would prepare the way for taking the opportunities for peace that should arise as a consequence of changes in Iraq.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I agree very much with the noble Lord that we should not involve ourselves in the agreed final make-up of the new Israeli Government—that is a matter for the Israeli people and their representatives. But whoever becomes the new Israeli Government must give a signal to the international community that they are serious about going down the route of a negotiated peace settlement. As a famous Member of this House and a former Prime Minister used to say, there is no alternative.

Meat Imports
3.17 p.m.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth Lord Livsey of Talgarth asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to publish the first annual report on combating the illegal imports of animal products required by Section 17 of the Animal Health Act 2002, and whether they will publish the service level agreement between Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the detection of smuggled imports.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, Section 17 of the Animal Health Act 2002 came into effect on 14th January 2003. The first annual review of import controls covering the financial year 2002–03 is being collated and will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible after the end of the financial year.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, when will the risk assessment be completed and published? Will the Minister's department publish the statistics as a baseline for comparison in future years on this vexed question?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the risk assessment that was commissioned in the autumn has produced its preliminary results and is in the process of being quality controlled and peer reviewed. It raises some complex questions and does not, of itself, yield a baseline. Nevertheless, the risk assessment, which should be published within a month, will give us information on which to judge the effectiveness or otherwise of import control systems and internal disease control systems thereafter.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, in the absence of an annual report or a completed assessment, does the Minister believe that there is now effective control of illegal importers?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there will never be 100 per cent effective control. The measures that we have

1283
taken in terms of carrying out checks, raising awareness, increasing resources and co-ordinating intelligence should make for a more effective system of control over imports in personal luggage and on the commercial side. But there will never be 100 per cent success in controlling all imports—no country in the world can achieve that.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, while I accept the Minister's answer. does he agree that the Meat Hygiene, Service has made a huge impact on some of these areas?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords. That underlines the importance of the Meat Hygiene Service not only at ports but in operating internal checks on internal movements further down the food chain. The risk assessment will show, in broad terms, that there is a problem of imported meat, but only a very small proportion of that will be contaminated, and only a very small proportion of that contaminated meat is likely to get into livestock. The risk of it then getting into livestock more generally and then into the food chain is substantially greater. Therefore, internal disease controls on farms, between farms, at market and down the food chain are vital.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, will the Minister accept my thanks for what DEFRA has already done in trying to raise awareness of this problem and in controlling illegal meat imports? However, does he agree that the general perception of travellers entering this country is that very little is still being done—that is, it is easy to enter this country without seeing such a poster or being subjected to a check? Will he urge the department to increase dramatically the amount of work that goes into this vital precaution?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I accept that anecdotally a large number of travellers seem not to see the posters that are there. A total of 26,000 posters have been established in airports, agencies and places of embarkation. A further wave of posters will follow on 1st February, incorporating the new rules and, it is hoped, being displayed to better effect for travellers. But the use of posters forms only part of the deterrence. The Government are also taking care of the rest of the deterrents—that is, issues concerning the number of checks, resources, co-ordination and so on. Those will be brought together in a few months' time when Customs and Excise takes over the co-ordinating role in dealing with illegal food imports.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the wording which is proposed to be used on landing cards with regard to animal products has been agreed with the carriers, and when those cards are likely to be introduced?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, a decision has not yet been made on landing cards. The system involving those cards applies only to non-EU travellers coming into
1284
the country, who account for less than 14 per cent of all people who land at UK airports. We are examining the possibility of including that information, but it will not deal with the bulk of people who enter the country. Therefore, if we go down that road, it will form only a very minor part of the total information system.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the European food authority will be able to make a positive contribution towards the reduction of imports of' illegal meat into the European Union and therefore into the United Kingdom?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the main activity of the European food authority will be to focus on the provision of food to consumers. Therefore, it will coordinate European national controls at that end of the food chain rather than at the fresh meat import end. Nevertheless, it will pull together some expertise, which will help in the detection and early identification of the risk of disease.

Lottery Funds Merger
3.22 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether in the event of a merger of the Community Fund with the New Opportunities Fund they will protect the independence, devolved structure and funding of the Community Fund.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the Government have not taken a decision on a possible merger. However, our commitment to maintain until 2009 the share of lottery funds going to charitable good causes will hold for any new body. The independence of lottery distributors in making decisions on individual grants would also be preserved. No decisions have been made on the structure of any new distributor, but we acknowledged in our recent review of lottery funding the importance of local decision-making.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. Can she give the House an assurance? There is one general concern in the charity and voluntary sector and two particular anxieties. The general concern is that the notion for the merger is driven more by the Whitehall instinct for control than anything else. The two particular concerns are: first, that the present highly devolved and applicant-sensitive grant-making procedures might be centralised; and, secondly, that the often imaginative and bold grant-making decisions and policies of the Community Fund might be sanitised. Will the noble Baroness comment on those anxieties?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I say, first, to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, that this has nothing to do with Whitehall control. It is about trying to find the

1285
most effective form of lottery distribution. On the two specific points about which he says there is concern in the voluntary sector, perhaps I can give him the reassurance that, before any merger occurs, further discussions will take place with all the interested parties, including the voluntary sector. It is the Government's intention to ensure that there is no sanitisation, as the noble Lord puts it, but that there is an independent system for deciding on the many hundreds of bids that are received from the thousands of organisations in the charitable sector which currently receive lottery grants.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the implementation of such a merger would require primary legislation?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I can confirm that primary legislation would be required for a full merger. But it would be possible to bring together the two existing distributors from an administrative point of view so that they could be co-located, their boards could be merged and they could share a common administration, pending legislation.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, as chair of the New Opportunities Fund, I declare an interest in this Question. Is my noble friend aware that the New Opportunities Fund gives almost as much money to the voluntary and community sectors as does the Community Fund? Is she also aware that it shares the concern of our colleagues in the Community Fund and, indeed, in the wider voluntary sector about the maintenance and independence of that funding stream? However, does she agree that the potential benefits of such a merger might include making lottery funding more accessible, more visible and more flexible, and that the aim of any such merger must be to make more lottery funding available to more disadvantaged individuals and communities across the United Kingdom in the most effective and efficient way possible?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I can confirm that about 40 per cent of NOF funding goes to the voluntary sector. I believe that the purpose of considering a merger is to try to build on the strengths of both bodies and to form a new organisation which provides a fresh and streamlined funding source for communities with the minimum amount of bureaucracy and reduced spending on overheads.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that any grants given by any new body—if the two bodies are to be merged—will cover the full costs, including the overheads, of the activity being funded and that support and advice will be made available throughout the period of the projects undertaken?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I cannot confirm the details of what the new arrangements might be for
1286
funding particular projects. However, I can say that discussions will take place with the voluntary sector and its views will, of course, be taken into account. I am absolutely sure that the lottery distributor—whether the two distributors merge or stay separate—will continue to want to give the type of advice to which the noble Baroness has just referred.

Business: Statement in the Commons
3.27 p.m.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House cast any light on the fact that this House is not to take the Statement made earlier in another place about the order of the two new aircraft carriers? They are, after all, to be the two biggest ships ever built in this country. They will do a great deal for unemployment in parts of the country that badly need help in that respect. They will maintain greatly needed design skills in this country, and they will add immensely to our forces' extension projection capability to an extent that we have never seen before.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the only knowledge that I have is that the Statement would have been offered in the usual way, and it is a matter for the Opposition parties to come to their own conclusion.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the Government can of course make a Statement if they wish to do so. But also, as the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House said, the Opposition and the other parties are given the opportunity to insist on a Statement, should they wish to do so. Sometimes, as the House knows, we do. I entirely agree that this is an extremely important order for the reasons that the noble Lord set out. However, at the same time, it is a matter upon which we felt we should like to reflect so that we can consider the details in a way that is not possible in response to a Statement, and that thereafter your Lordships may wish to discuss the matter.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that the prime contractorship for the building of these two new aircraft carriers is one of the most important procurement decisions for the Armed Forces and for employment in this country that has been taken for many, many years? Is it not strange that Members of your Lordships' House should have to read in the newspapers what Members of another place are hearing today?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, self-evidently it is an important order. I think that that is why the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said that, on behalf of his party, he wanted to reflect on it and possibly come back to it when there is more opportunity than is offered today to reflect on the background and the intricacies of such an important matter.
Lord Roper: My Lords, if I may, I should like to add that we have considered this matter very carefully.

1287
Like the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, we understand the importance of the Statement. As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, however, we believe that this is a matter on which we should reflect and to which we should return when we have an opportunity to discuss it in greater detail.

Mergers: EUC Report
3.30 p.m.
Lord Grenfell Lord Grenfell rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee on the Review of the EC Merger Regulation (32nd Report, HL Paper 165, Session 2001–02).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise in my capacity as the chairman of Sub-Committee A, as I was at the time that we conducted the inquiry and published, in July 2002, the report which is before your Lordships' House this afternoon. I very much regret that your Lordships have had to wait so long for an opportunity to debate it. In my new capacity as chairman of the European Union Select Committee, I am hopeful that the recommendation contained in our recently published report on the scrutiny of European legislation—that the debating of Select Committee reports not be so long delayed—is really taken to heart by the usual channels. I am very sorry that a further and eleventh-hour delay in the scheduling of this particular debate inconvenienced a number of noble Lords and deprived us of the participation of two of the greatest experts in the House on this issue. I think that that is a great shame.
I am. however, delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Brittan of Spennithorne, is participating today. As the Competition Commissioner from 1989 to 1992, he did a great deal to develop and expand the European competition policy as the final stages of the single market were being put in place. We much look forward to hearing what he has to say.
This inquiry was prompted by the publication, in December 2001, of the Commission's Green Paper reviewing the European Community's Merger Regulation—the ECMR. The purpose of the Green Paper was to launch a broad debate on how the ECMR was working, and it proposed a wide range of possible ways to improve the merger regime. Our report was a response to Commissioner Monti's desire to gather views from all interested quarters. We were delighted to have this opportunity to contribute once again to the long-evolving debate on the merger regulation as we have done over the years both immediately prior to its adoption in 1989 and on two subsequent occasions (in 1992 and 1996) before this latest inquiry and report.
I am extremely grateful to members of the subcommittee who put a great deal of hard work, time and effort into the inquiry and the deliberation on the draft report which was so brilliantly prepared by our clerk, Dr Richard McLean, to whom we are greatly indebted. Our warm thanks go also to Dr Richard Whish and Miss Jennifer Halliday of King's College
1288
London who served as our indispensable specialist advisers through a three-month inquiry of particular complexity.
As we note in paragraph 21 of the report, the merger regulation has become one of the cornerstones of EC competition law and many witnesses—from the business community to the regulators—told us how highly they regarded the regulation and what a success its operation had been. The committee recognises the good work of the Commission in applying the ECMR, and we endorse the Department of Trade and Industry's view, as offered to us in oral evidence, that the Commission has,
"responded with great success to the huge challenge of enforcing the Regulation vigorously but fairly, despite an exponential increase in the case-load".
The latter point is borne out in the footnote on page 31 of our report, which shows the number of notifications to the Commission increasing from 12, in 1990. to 340, in 2001.
That said, one has to acknowledge that not all is sweetness and light. We shared the view of the many witnesses who expressed disappointment that the Green Paper devoted only limited attention to the important issue of due process and the checks and balances to the Commission's decision-making procedures. Of course, these issues go beyond the rules set out in the ECM R itself and concern the Commission's internal administrative practices for handling cases and the role of the Community courts.
Meanwhile, the Commission has been the subject of some serious criticism, and witnesses drew attention to shortcomings in the ECMR system which were causing increasing concern. Some had already been borne out by the judgment, on 6th June 2002, of the Court of First Instance in the Airtours/First choice case which, while our inquiry was still in progress, overturned the Commission's decision to block the merger. Then, three months later, within the space of just one week, the court overturned two more Commission decisions: Sehneider/Legrand and Tetra Laval/Sidel. I should add in parenthesis, however, that one should bear in mind, before accusing the Commission and its Merger Task Force, as some have, of being too big for their boots, that it has blocked only 18 out of almost 2,100 of the mergers it has examined since given its powers of control in 1990.
That said, and in light of these recent reverses in court, our committee was, I think, in retrospect, right to have considered it important that the broad review of the Green Paper be taken as art opportunity to assess all of the ECMR procedures. Obviously, the committee could not address all of them ourselves in our inquiry, so we focused on what we considered the three essential issues, which were jurisdictional, substantive and procedural. Late last year, when Commissioner Mario Monti completed his review and the full Commission, on 11th December, adopted his recommended package of reforms, we found that many if not most of our own recommendations were in line with the conclusions that he himself had eventually reached after considering the extensive advice he had invited from many quarters.
What, then, were our own recommendations? I will certainly not weary your Lordships with a long recital of them. For convenience's sake, they are set out in summary form in Part 6 of our Report, at pages 51–52. As noble Lords will hear, I suspect, from the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, who will be replying this afternoon—the committee's position on all the major issues appeared very close to that of the Government as stated in their own response to the Green Paper and in their response to our report. Indeed, there are reflections of our common position on some of the issues in the Enterprise Act which the noble Lord skilfully guided through this House. We look forward to hearing his reply to this debate.
Meanwhile, permit me to select just a few of the conclusions and recommendations which find particular resonance in the Commission's latest package of reforms.
Although we dealt with jurisdictional issues first in our inquiry, we were in no doubt from the start that the top priority for reform was the need to ensure greater objectivity and fairness and greater efficiency in the ECMR process. The grounds on which the Commission suffered those three recent reverses in the court suggest that we were not wrong to place such emphasis on due process. In your committee's view, the many concerns about due process would be best addressed by improving the procedural safeguards in the current system, in particular enhancing the internal checks and balances in the ECMR regime. Efforts to ensure an effective system of due process cannot, in the committee's view, be limited solely to trying to obtain speedier judicial review or a greater role for the courts.
Our report strongly recommends that any case reaching Phase II should be subjected to a measure of independent thinking through the introduction of the so-called "second pair of eyes". In practice, that means that the Commission should divide responsibility for the consideration of cases in Phase I and Phase II. Appointment of a review panel is one of the Commission's own new recommendations. We believe that that is a step in the right direction.
We also concluded that the objectivity of the Commission's proceedings would be further enhanced if the hearing officer's report was fully reasoned and contained a comprehensive explanation of his or her conclusions. The Government agreed with that, and we are very happy to note that the Commission recommends increasing the hearing officer's support staff, presumably with this among other improvements in mind.
We were particularly insistent that the Commission strengthen its overall capacity for economic analysis in merger cases. There has been, according to many of our witnesses, a tendency in the merger task force to rely too much on narrow legal points or untested theories instead of on hard economic evidence. We recommended that the Commission appoint a chief economist, and we are pleased to see that the Commission's package of recommended reforms includes the creation of a chief competition economist in the directorate-general.
We note with interest provisions in the package for merging parties to have an earlier opportunity—for example, before the statement of objection is issued—to review the content of the Commission's files pertaining to the deal that they wish to make and any third-party submissions on the impact on competition.
In our inquiry we were much impressed by evidence strongly suggesting that by conducting the oral hearing before the statement of objections, the issues involved in the case would be out on the table earlier, which would be to everyone's benefit. That is reflected in our recommendation summarised in paragraph 299. It would allow the hearing officer to summarise the situation after the oral hearing, identifying the competition problems and their possible solutions. Drawing on that, the merger task force would then be able to come up with a statement of objections amounting to a draft decision which could act as the framework for remedy negotiations. That would be fairer to the parties concerned and a more logical and orderly way of proceeding.
I turn now to jurisdictional issues. They are covered in paragraphs 32 to 97 with our recommendations summarised in paragraphs 275 to 285. Once again I shall not abuse your Lordships' patience by itemising them, but I shall say a word about those that are related to important new measures now proposed by the Commission.
As we saw it, the key jurisdictional issue was how best to amend the regulation to minimise the problems associated with multiple filings while ensuring that mergers that could significantly affect competition in a distinctive market within a member state are examined at national level. That is to say, mergers must be examined by the regulatory body that is best placed to ensure the maintenance of effective competition. We agreed that no single measure would achieve that, and that a workable package of measures had to be devised.
As an important component of that package, and to clarify the issue of who has jurisdiction over which mergers, we supported the Green Paper's proposal to move to a simpler system whereby the Commission would have jurisdiction over all mergers that are subject to three or more national filings—the so-called "three-plus rule". That change, we felt, would provide greater certainty to businesses as it would reduce the instances where companies are required to file with a multiplicity of national competition authorities. We felt that the three-plus rule would serve better if it were mandatory, thus lessening the risk of so-called forum shopping. The Government feel that it should be optional—one of the rare instances where our recommendations and the Government's response part company.
The Commission package proposes a simplified system for the referral of cases by the Commission to member states and vice versa, an idea that we ourselves advanced by means of a simplification of Articles 9 and 22 of the regulation. The Commission's changes are clearly designed at least in part to make the one-stop shop in Brussels available in more cases, but

1291
interestingly it has abandoned its earlier proposal in the Green Paper, and thus implicitly our recommendation, that it should take jurisdiction in every case where the three-plus-one rule would normally apply.
I turn to the third of our three main concerns, the substantive test. That is dealt with in Part 4 of our report in paragraphs 98–161 and our conclusions and recommendations are summarised in paragraphs 289–290. We were impressed by the arguments for having the Commission switch from the dominance test to the substantial lessening of competition test, commonly known as the SLC test as applied in the US, Canada and a number of other jurisdictions. Some of our witnesses claimed that only semantics distinguished the two tests, and that a switch from one to the other would produce no fundamental change in how the ECMR functioned. We accepted that there were similarities between the two tests and that in many cases their application may give the same result. However there seemed to be broad agreement that the SLC test is in many ways better in theory, and that if one were today drafting the regulation from scratch, one would probably adopt the SLC test.
We accepted, however, that a change in the test should not be made lightly. There would inevitably be short-term disruptive consequences. We remained persuaded that the longer-term interest would be better served by a switch. Given that the Enterprise Act replaces the existing United Kingdom public interest test with one based on SLC, it is not surprising that we and the Government are at one in wanting to see the switch made at the European level.
We set out our reasons for recommending a switch in six bullet points appearing in paragraph 160. Time does not permit me to elaborate, but I suggest that they are clear enough. At the heart of our argument lies the conviction that any merger that substantially lessens competition should be investigated, and that the SLC provides a better basis on which to assess such cases than the dominance test, even though it can be argued that today the dominance test could fairly be described as "dominance plus".
When we met with Commissioner Monti he told us that he had not yet reached any conclusion on this issue and might not do so during the time available to him for the review of the Green Paper. In the end he reached a conclusion, which was to retain the dominance test. However, it seems that it will be redefined to extend to situations in which,
"the combined entity holds the economic power to influence appreciably and sustainably the parameters of competition, … or appreciably to foreclose competition".
Some are suggesting that that wording could be read as extending the reach of the ECMR further than the SLC test. Time will tell.
The Committee was extremely sceptical of the necessity or desirability of introducing into the text of the ECMR provisions setting out an explicit efficiency defence. We felt that if there were a significant reduction in competition in a market, there would be very little incentive or reason for the company to pass
1292
on any efficiencies to the consumer. The Government have taken a rather different view, believing that efficiency considerations can be relevant under the rubric of clearly defined customer benefits. However, the Government appear to agree with us that where there are doubts that benefits will materialise as a natural consequence of a merger, and within a reasonable timeframe, the efficiency defence should fall. We note that the Commission wishes to consider efficiencies in its assessments with certain provisos that are similar to those adopted by the Government. I am afraid that we remain sceptical.
Let me close with one specific plea that we on the committee wished to express strongly. The ECMR and its effective, equitable and transparent implementation is far too important to be jeopardised by resource constraints. We urge member states—this is the final recommendation in our report—to agree the provision of the necessary new posts; otherwise, all the advice that has been tendered to the Commission and the Commission's own generally commendable recent proposals to improve this vitally and increasingly important regulatory system will have been in vain.
I have covered much less than the totality of our findings and recommendations in this long and fairly complex report, but doubtless others will fill in some of the gaps. I greatly look forward to the debate. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee on the Review of the EC Merger Regulation (32nd Report, HL Paper 165, Session 2001 –02).—(Lord Grenfell.)
3.48 p.m.
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: My Lords, I warmly welcome the debate and congratulate the authors of the report on the way in which their conclusions are argued and on the care that they have taken in considering this extremely important subject. I also welcome the debate because, in spite of the kind invitation to give evidence to the committee, unfortunately I was unable to do so due to absence overseas.
Much has happened since the committee deliberated. There has been further criticism by the Court of Justice of the handling of particular cases, and most notably last December the Commission put forward its own reform proposals. That has not rendered the report or the debate less valuable because the Commission's proposals are still being considered, although there have been firm announcements on some points such as the appointment of an independent economist, as recommended by the committee.
When I arrived at the Commission as the commissioner responsible for competition, it was by no means clear that the merger regulation would be enacted. It had been the subject of debate for some 16 years. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who at the time was the permanent representative in Brussels, however, immediately assured me that by the end of

1293
the year it would be agreed. That was the first of many examples of his prescience that I encountered—and it indeed proved to be the case.
As one can imagine, it is all the more gratifying to me that so many years later the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and his committee have felt able to commend the regulation and how it has operated in paragraph 21 of the report.
In considering the faults, the problems and the desirable reforms, the noble Lord was absolutely right to lay stress on the enormous increase in cases that have occurred—an increase that is far greater than we could have envisaged at the time that the regulation was passed. However, as part of the bargain between the Commission and the member states for approving the regulation, we insisted that the Commission should be adequately staffed with people who could handle issues of this kind. It was impossible to predict the explosion from three to over 340 cases that occurred in a decade.
The handling of cases has been criticised by the court in recent times and condemned by others for arrogance. I suspect that that was in large part caused by the sheer pressure of the workload. Therefore, I strongly support the conclusion of the committee, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, that adequate resources must be provided for this work. It is a priority. It is, indeed, a service to industry in the European Union.
The report is full of other detailed recommendations. I want to focus on two main issues. The first is the question of the support for switching the tests from the dominant position to the substantial lessening of competition test. Despite reading the report carefully and participating in numerous debates on this issue here, but mostly in the United States, I do not believe that the committee has made that case out. The report includes a very fair and full analysis of the pros and cons, but the conclusion it ultimately put forward—if one reads it carefully—is on the narrowest of grounds.
The report refers to serious and considered arguments on both sides. In fact, the most vociferous calls for change have come from the other side of the Atlantic, from the American business community, which is furious that the Commission dared to reach a different conclusion from the American authorities in the Honeywell case. Those who have spoken in that sense have been motivated by not only a desire that we should accede to the American test, but also a desire to make it easier for companies to push mergers through.
The reality is that the difference of opinion that occurs in cases where the two tests are applied is almost always caused not by the difference in the test but by the difference in the application of the test to the facts. Indeed, paragraph 102 of your Lordships' committee states:
"Some witnesses, such as Dr William Bishop, Chairman of Lexecon Limited, thought that there was 'very little difference in practice between the two tests'. He did not see 'major differences' between SLC and dominance in the way that the latter had been developed and applied by the Commission. The Government said
1294
that a change from dominance to SLC would not be 'a fundamental change' to how the ECMR functioned. The Confederation of British Industry accepted that 'real differences' between the tests were 'difficult to pin down"'.
There is a very good reason for thinking that if the change were made the result would be the exact opposite of what some of the American critics would wish and that more transactions would be prohibited.
Therefore, the argument is a narrow one. I think sufficient weight has to be given to the fact that a considerable jurisprudence has evolved applying the dominance test and that if a change were to be made that jurisprudence would be lost and the precedents would disappear. Unless, therefore, a substantial gain is to be achieved by a change in the test, that in itself is a ground for not making such a change. As all seem agreed that the differences are narrow and the results difficult to predict—and probably not in the direction that the advocates of change would wish—I feel that the case for change has not been made out.
Nor am I convinced by the argument that if the same test is applied in all jurisdictions there would be a gain in uniformity and a propensity for fewer clashes. As is said in paragraph 123,
"even if the same substantive test were applied across the different jurisdictions, the way in which the test was applied could give different results. For the CBI, harmonising the legal test in the legislation would not 'in and of itself lead to a more consistent approach' because, however the test was phrased. the regulators would retain 'a broad margin of discretion"'.
As one would expect, in the American cases there are often divisions of opinion between different judges and different regulators applying the same test but coming to a different conclusion on the facts of a specific case.
It is also important to point out that, in practice, the two tests have moved closer together. That is stated in the report. The reason for that is largely because of how the Commission has developed the doctrine of collective dominance. Indeed, paragraph 138 specifically accepts the fact that the two tests have moved together.
So, if one considers all that—the limited difference between the tests, the fact that they have increasingly converged and the last of the jurisprudence under the existing test—it is difficult to see a reason for change. Indeed, the only reasons for change given in the report are three specific examples where it might be difficult to apply the collective dominance test and a desire to distinguish the tests under the merger regulation from the tests applied under Article 82 with regard to the abuse of a dominant position.
The argument that it is difficult to apply the merger regulations unless one changes the test, has, I think been rendered less cogent—and will be rendered still less cogent when the Commission adopts measures, as it says it will, that deal with vertical mergers and conglomerates. These will tackle the concept of oligopolistic market dominance and reflect the experience acquired through the examination of over 2,000 cases. So, I think that the argument founded upon the three specific examples is not sufficient for a change.

1295
As to the argument that there should be a distinction between the tests applied under the merger regulation and the tests applied under Article 82, I find no real evidence that there has been confusion because the language of the two is similar. I do not find that a reason for change either. Therefore, I would go along with the Commission's rather than the committee's conclusions on that point.
I shall say word on the efficiencies defence. The report is very cool on that issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, has indicated, it is considerably chillier than the Government. I was extremely reluctant to accept arguments in favour of such a test at the time of the introduction of the merger regulation. The reason for that was very simple. It seemed to me that—at a time when many people wanted the merger regulation to be used to apply industrial policy rather than competition policy—explicitly to include an efficiency test would be an open invitation for protectionist tendencies to gain force.
On the other hand, the Government are right to say that efficiencies are not absolutely irrelevant. The latest Commission position is reasonable: it has promised to grant particular attention to the positive effect of a merger that at first glance would appear a threat to competition; but concrete and sufficient proof will be requested from the companies and a positive effect on consumers will have to be demonstrated. The Commission said that a green light to the creation of monopoly or quasi-monopoly was unlikely. In other words, there would be a hard row to hoe for those who wanted to run an efficiencies defence.
The other question to which I shall refer is that of checks and balances. The committee recommends that responsibility for consideration of phases I and II should be divided between two separate teams of officials. As I understand it, after phase I, the first team would leave and the phase II officials would enter. That proposal was made because the committee thought that a switch to a judicial-based system would be premature and too radical, but that, on the other hand, something had to be done to deal with the objections to the Commission acting as prosecutor, judge and jury in merger cases.
I should like to be somewhat less cautious and take the argument head-on. I do not favour going down the American route of requiring a judicial determination before a merger can be banned. That would certainly import considerable delays to the decision-making process and not have the effect favoured by those that advocate it. The desire to avoid delays would lead to exactly the same process of negotiation over remedies that takes place today. Moreover, it would give the courts the task of taking the decisions, as opposed to reviewing them—a role that does not fit well with the basic distribution of functions between the institutions that has been central to the EU's operation.
It is therefore understandable that the Commission does not want to go down that route and instead suggested as a way to deal with the problem the creation of a peer review panel to scrutinise the
1296
investigating team's conclusion with a fresh pair of eyes. As I understand that proposal. that is not quite the same as the committee's proposal for the substitution of a new team, because the Commission does not envisage that the old team would disappear, it would merely be subject to the additional scrutiny of a fresh pair of eyes.
Whether such a system will satisfy the Commission's critics will depend heavily on the precise way in which it is set up and then operates. The panel must be of high standing, with full access to the file and considerable transparency in its operations, if it is to win the confidence of critics. Even so, it is in my view unlikely to be considered sufficiently independent if it consists solely of senior Commission officials.
One way to strengthen what is proposed and make the scrutiny of the merger taskforce's operations appear more robust would be to include one genuinely independent person on each panel—someone who is not a Commission official. I hope that that suggestion can be seriously considered during current discussions.
I conclude by once again warmly commending the report. I remember Jacques Delors once telling me— although we often had our disagreements, we often met to discuss them—that reports of the House of Lords represented by far the best analysis and critique of Commission proposals in the European Union. This report can only enhance support for that opinion.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, for introducing the debate and chairing Sub-Committee A during the production of the report. He chaired the committee with great determination, patience and skill, and managed to squeeze out the report before the summer holiday. That is all the more reason to regret that it has taken us well into the New Year to get around to debating it.
It is also a pleasure to follow the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brittan of Spennithorne. As he reminded the House, he and I had some dealings when the regulation was being adopted. It was my duty from time to time to go to express the deep regret of the British Government that he was taking an especially tough line on some piece of state aid. I am glad to say that he always gave me a fair hearing; I am equally glad to say that he was always firm.
This debate is taking place at an important stage in the evolution of the European Union's competition policy—in particular, of its arrangements for dealing with mergers. The Commission has now completed its analysis of the responses to its Green Paper on the reform of those arrangements, of which the report that we are debating forms part. It has revealed its thinking and the member states will shortly begin consideration of changes to the basic regulation on mergers arising from the whole complex and lengthy process.
I hope that it will not be considered unduly self-congratulatory if, as a member of the sub-committee that drafted the report before us, I point out that many of the ideas that the Commission has now decided to

1297
pursue figure prominently in that report. Perhaps that is not too surprising, because the dialogue that the subcommittee was able to have with Commissioner Monti when we visited Brussels showed just how much common ground there was between us. Even if it is not surprising, it is a cause for satisfaction.
When one plunges into the wood of the merger regulation, it is all too easy rapidly to lose sight of anything but the technical trees, each one lovingly analysed by a host of legal and economic experts whose daily task it is to work in the field. But it is important to remember at every stage just how vital a part of the single market is an effective, objective and smoothly functioning merger regulation. I doubt whether many would now deny that without such a regulation, the single market would be lacking an essential component. National competition authorities have their role to play, but the degree of integration now reached by the European single market makes a central, regulatory authority for mergers a necessity, not an optional extra.
How well, then, are the present arrangements functioning? Although the apocalyptic conclusions drawn by some commentators from recent European Court cases that found against the Commission are often wide of the mark, there have been rather too many such cases to be able to dismiss them as of marginal significance. So the honest answer to the question is probably not far from that of the curate's reply to the Bishop on the quality of his breakfast egg: "Good in parts, my Lord".
The Commission provides a speed of service that is the envy of companies in other parts of the world, including the United States. It has built up a body of case law that enables companies contemplating mergers to proceed with a fair degree of confidence as to what will be acceptable and what will not. The benefits of the EU's competition policy to consumers and to the effective functioning of the market have been real—albeit intangible and not easy to quantify.
However, time and experience have shown up weaknesses and it is now necessary that they be remedied, not just swept under the carpet. Many arise within the Commission itself and are of an organisational nature, which the Commission itself can remedy without much involvement by the member states. The appointment of a chief competition economist, properly staffed to ensure that economic considerations are as carefully analysed at every stage of the process as are legal considerations, is one such measure.
Another is to ensure that during the second, critical phase of any merger review, the work of the reviewer is considered by a second, independent panel of experts not hitherto involved in the process. A third is to give hearings officers more resources and to make their work more transparent. A fourth is to issue guidelines on the scope for and limits of an efficiencies defence of a merger.
Many of those proposals, supported by the subcommittee, have been accepted by the Commission, but, regrettably, it has not gone the whole way by
1298
accepting a second phase review by a second group of examiners. I welcome the Government's intention, set out in their Explanatory Memorandum, which this House has just received, to press this point in the forthcoming legislative process on amendments to the regulation. The Commission should in any case be encouraged to implement the procedural changes that it has accepted without more ado and without waiting for the adoption of an amended regulation. If they require additional resources, as they certainly will, I express the hope, as did others, that the budgetary authorities—shorthand for the British and other governments—will not take too stingy an approach.
On wider issues requiring a more direct response by the member states, and perhaps some amendment to the basic regulation, the introduction of provisions for a limited stopping of the clock makes sense. So, too, does the clarification of the rules for transferring cases between the national competition authorities and the Commission. But I regret that the Commission seems to be turning its face against any radical change in what is called the "substantive test" to be applied to merger cases. Despite the fact that some of the problems in recent court cases seem to result from the lengths to which the Commission has gone to stretch the existing notion of a dominant position. it appears to think that minor changes to the notion of dominance will suffice. It is, thus, setting aside the compelling arguments for moving to a substantive test based on the alternative notion of a significant lessening of competition (SLC) test.
The main argument for such a switch in the substantive test is not just that the SLC test is widely applied internationally—for instance, in the USA, Canada, Japan and New Zealand, as well as nationally in the Enterprise Act that we passed in the last Session—although there would be benefits from the application of a global standard. Rather, the real argument is that the SLC test has a more obvious and common-sense relevance; it is wider in its scope and thus more likely to catch the broadest number of anticompetitive features of proposed mergers. In that respect, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brittan. in thinking that the US advocates of the test as being more restrictive might have a nasty shock if it were applied. The SLC also seems to bring economic factors more directly into play.
There are arguments against such a switch: it will create confusion and a lack of continuity for European businesses contemplating mergers. But I hazard a guess that, even if the European Union follows the Commission in sticking to a dominance test on this occasion, it will not be long before we are all back again examining the case for the EU to switch to the SLC test. That will not be a disaster but an opportunity missed.
I very much agree with the Commission's resistance of the arguments advanced in favour of handing over the final determination of all negative merger cases to the courts, as in the United States. That would put at risk one of the chief merits of the European Union system—its relative expeditiousness and the certainty of the timetable that a company faces. It would also tip

1299
the balance back towards the legal considerations in respect of mergers, just when we are trying to tilt it towards economic considerations. However many promises were made of speeding up European judicial procedures—and it is good that the Commission will try to ensure that the present appeals procedures work more rapidly—I have little confidence that sending all negative merger determinations to a two-tier legal system. which is already struggling with its existing workload, would do other than create uncertainty and delay. Those are two factors that European businesses could well do without.
In conclusion, I hope that our debate will send to the Commission a general message of firm support for its vital work on competition policy, tempered by a strong desire to see the earliest possible introduction of reforms designed to make the system more flexible, transparent and objective. No aspect of the European Union brings its citizens more benefits and value than the single market. A competition policy that works well is a necessary part of that single market.
4.14 p.m.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I, too, have been greatly privileged to serve under the able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, on Sub-Committee A in this, my second term. The timing of this inquiry was opportune in the light of the Airtours case, which effectively expedited many of the sought-after reforms in the EC Green Paper. I should at the outset declare an interest as a consultant to Merrill Lynch, which is not mentioned in the report. I thank our specialist advisers, Professor Whish and Dr Jennifer Halladay, for their able stewardship and expert knowledge of this complicated subject.
The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, has given us an admirable overview of the main findings of our report. I shall I ouch on two key issues: enforcement, which all noble Lords have mentioned, and the need for a universal substantive test. One of my concerns throughout the inquiry was the fact that the Commission has tended to act on referrals as investigator, prosecutor and judge, and that there has been inadequate separation of responsibilities and insufficient checks and balances on the Commission's decision-making process.
As the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, mentioned, following the publication of our report, the European Commission suffered three consecutive defeats in the European Court of First Instance in the cases of Airtours, Schneider and Laval. The court used unusually harsh language in concluding that the Commission had failed to satisfy its burden of proof and had variedly failed to take into account the evidence, had drawn speculative conclusions from selective hits of evidence, and, in the Schneider case, had failed to protect the parties' rights by failing to give them the opportunity to respond to, and defend themselves against, specific allegations. If one reads those decisions, taking into account how the Commission has in the past rebutted its critics by bragging that a merger had never been overturned by the courts, there is an inference that the Commission
1300
was smug and arrogant. There was, therefore, much collective cheer by practitioners, in particular, following those judgments.
Having said that, there is much respect and appreciation of the Commission's work in applying the EC Merger Regulation to the ever-burgeoning numbers of referrals. The critics have been constructive in the consultation process. It is noteworthy that over 40 per cent of the submissions to the consultation on the Commission's Green Paper on merger reform came from the United States. I, therefore, warmly welcomed the comprehensive package of reforms of EU merger controls that the Competition Commissioner, Mario Monti, announced last month. I welcomed, in particular, plans for the European Commission to improve its scrutiny of takeovers by listening more to companies involved in the deals. I hope that the Commissioner's business-friendly words will be matched by the Commission's actions. To quote Commissioner Mario Monti:
"Merger control is not about blocking mergers. It is about ensuring consumers continue to benefit from sufficient innovation, choice and competitive prices".
The proposals addressed another recommendation in our report; namely, the need for a chief economist to bolster the Commission's expertise. It was accepted that the Commission's level of in-house economics expertise was weak and that more legal certainty should be given in setting out clear economics-based guidelines, mirroring the US merger guidelines.
I also support the move to create a peer review panel composed of experienced officials to review cases at key points during the inquiry and, in a way, act as devil's advocate. That certainly goes a long way towards addressing my concern that officials were acting as investigators, prosecutors and judges in the merger control process. I also welcome the move towards more transparency whereby merging firms will be able to review the Commission's file and third party submissions to the inquiry. That is a good move and will give the merging parties more of a chance to discuss their case with senior Commission management. The reforms are all welcome, if not a bit overdue. However, they still leave concerns over the accountability and competence of the Commission.
The question of how the merger will foster or impede efficiency is a black hole in the European merger regulation. I was alarmed to read in a recent KPMG report that over 82 per cent of cross-border mergers involving the United Kingdom and other member states had unfortunately failed to deliver value. The reasons for that include the lack of understanding and consistency in commercial and financial due diligence, which stems from cultural differences as well as corporate governance inconsistencies.
My final point relates to the substantive issue. The Commission was pulled up by the Court of First Instance in the Airtours case, particularly over the way in which it interpreted and applied the concept of collective dominance, under which a number of firms with significant market share can be regarded as

1301
collectively having market power, as opposed to single firm dominance, where a firm has a market share of 40 per cent or more and acts in a way that infringes the EU treaty. The Commission failed in Airtours to establish that, with the merger, the firm would act in a way that could be seen as constituting collective dominance. The Court of First Instance regarded its analysis as highly speculative. That has been clarified by the EU Court now, and we can proceed on that basis.
Despite the far-reaching reforms, the Commission has decided to continue using the dominance test as the merger competition test. In our inquiry, most of our witnesses were in broad agreement that the SLC test was better in theory—I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Brittan of Spennithorne, disagrees with me—and was a more economically based test than the dominance test. We did not have the wisdom of the noble Lord, but, as outlined in paragraph 160 of our report, some witnesses,
"were concerned about the implications of a change in terms of the uncertainty it would cause and the unpredictability of how the new test would be applied".
It was felt that a move in Europe to SLC would have short-term disruptive consequences.
I disagree fundamentally with that approach and support the view of Mr Vickers. In a speech at the joint conference held by the International Bar Association and the European Commission in November in Brussels, he pointed out that the word "dominance" has different meanings. He referred to Humpty Dumpty and Through the Looking Glass and claimed that the dominance test reduced legal certainty. Furthermore, from a practitioner's point of view and from a company's point of view, the position is complicated by the fact that some member states, such as Ireland and, following the recent reforms under the Enterprise Act 2002, the United Kingdom, have changed to the SLC as they reform their merger laws, while the Commission continues with the dominance test by shoring up the gap. In brief, the risk for Europe is that we have differing merger standards, thus undoing the benefits of consistency and certainty.
Although I still have several reservations about the reform of the EU Merger Regulation, there is no doubt that we are moving in the right direction. We are moving in the right direction to ensure transparency, checks and balances, and speed and efficiency. I am often concerned that our Select Committee reports and sub-committee reports are rarely read and rarely get much coverage in the broadsheets, and I was delighted to hear the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Brittan of Spennithorne, about the praise from Jacques Delors. However, this inquiry has raised many important questions, several of which have, thankfully, recently been addressed.
4.25 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I join others in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and declare that I am wearing two hats today. I was a
1302
member of the committee when the report was drawn up, but I speak today from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, partly with a Liberal Democrat hat on.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, said, EU competition policy has emerged in the past 20 years as part of the bedrock of the single market. Merger policy, which has shorter roots—the merger regulation came into effect only in 1989—has become a vital part of competition policy. When the merger regulation was introduced, it was agreed that there would be regular reviews of how it worked. The Green Paper, which was the impetus for our report, was, in its way, a routine part of that review process. It raised several questions about difficulties and wrinkles in the way in which the regulation worked, suggested ways in which it might be revised and asked for views on those suggestions. In some senses, what we covered in the review was part of the routine process of monitoring and review.
Some of the issues that were covered were, in a way, commonsense proposals to tighten up procedures. On the whole, the jurisdictional issues that we dealt with—in particular, how to cope with multiple filings, given the substantial increase in the number of applications—were fairly routine. There was also the question of whether we should stop the clock on procedures, to enable the initial phase 1 and phase 2 investigative procedures to be given more time in complex cases. They were routine issues, and the proposals that were made were relatively commonsense proposals. I am pleased that, in that sense, the Commission took note of our views. On the whole, the developments on those lines are sensible.
I shall talk about two of the more substantive issues that emerged in the report. There was the question of shifting from the dominance test to the substantial lessening of competition; and there was the issue of due process and whether the Commission, in acting as prosecutor, judge and jury, allowed for a fair hearing. On the latter point, we on these Benches endorse the committee's conclusion that the shift to the US system, in which cases are dealt with judicially, would be a major step. It would not be necessary and would not be welcome. We endorse the committee's proposals, and, to some extent, the Commission has gone along with them.
There are ways of strengthening current procedures. The procedures needed to be more obviously objective. It was proposed to separate phases 1 and 2, and to strengthen the role of the hearing officer. Indeed, like the Commission, we should have liked to go along with the committee's proposals to have a separate review of phases 1 and 2. However, in the event, we are pleased that the Commission has gone as far as it has in proposing independent members of panels. Perhaps it has not gone as far as we might have wanted, but it is a move in the right direction.
I turn to the issue of the substantive test. I shifted my stance during the course of the committee hearings. I began by feeling strongly that the dominance test had been applied; that there was little difference between the concept of collective dominance and the

1303
substantial lessening of competition in relation to oligopoly; that the two could come together; and. that there was the great advantage of an established body of case law.
I changed my mind during the inquiry. I should like to explain why, and how ultimately I came down firmly in favour of the substantial lessening of competition. To economists, the case for mergers is known as the "market for managerial control". A firm can be seen as a collection of physical assets, human capital, goodwill and so forth. If a group of managers do not make the most of those assets, and that is reflected in their market capitalisation, they may be challenged in the market by another group of managers who believe that better use could be made of those assets. Thus, there are take-overs and mergers. Essentially, the case for non-interference is that the market knows best and should be allowed to decide which group of managers can make the best use of those assets.
However, a substantial body of literature now suggests that mergers do not always perform as the market predicts. In the late 1970s, the economist Ronald Meeks, wrote a seminal study on how a series of mergers worked out—or rather, how badly a series of mergers worked out. The book is entitled Disappointing Marriages. Since that time there have been a substantial number of academic studies on post-merger developments.
One of the people who addressed the hearings was Professor John Kay. I should like to quote from his evidence. He said:
"there are quite a lot of academic studies of the performance of mergers—really of several different kinds. There is looking at stock market impact; to what extent do mergers add value to the combined companies; comparisons of pre and post merger; costs and profitability: to what extent are mergers followed by disposals which are often at least an indication that this has not been very successful; and then just asking people, 'Do you think this merger has succeeded?', and the overall tenor of that quite large literature is really pretty negative. The disagreement is more whether the consequences are neutral or negative rather than how positive they are".
The dominant market structures that we face today are structures of oligopoly—competition among the few. In many ways, where there is oligopoly, there is often intense competition. One has only to look at the intense competition between Tesco and Sainsburys, the two main supermarkets within an area. But oligopoly also poses problems for monopoly control. That is seen most regularly with oil companies, the large oil companies competing intensely with each other. Yet, by a process of osmosis, prices always go up and go down at the same time. That is partly because the companies are watching each other intensely. The whole structure of oligopoly encourages what is sometimes called implicit collusion. There is no question of explicit collusion, but there is a degree of implicit collusion.
However, oligopoly has posed to all anti-trust authorities—whether they be British, American or indeed now European —a very real problem. It could be suggested that during the past 20 to 25 years there has been in Britain a shift away from national
1304
oligopoly. Many of the firms that we dealt with, such as GEC and ICL, were national companies and in the 1980s they became European companies. Perhaps, to an increasing extent, at that point we were faced with European oligopoly.
In the 1990s, a huge number of trans-national mergers took place and the word "globalisation" is often applied to that. Glaxo, a British company, became GlaxoWellcome. Still a British company, it finally became GlaxoSmithKline, a huge multinational company. AstraZeneca and ABB, formed in the 1980s, are large European multinationals.
One of the problems that has arisen with the push towards globalisation is that one has seen—ABB illustrates the point well—a move from family management to the development of managerial capitalism, with professional managers and perhaps accountants going in and taking over. One of the results has been the emergence of large international conglomerates in which the assets of companies are being traded around, rather in the manner of a game of Monopoly—casino capitalism. Thus, we have seen the emergence of huge companies such as Enron, TXU Energy, and so forth, who are trading assets around.
Those companies have turnovers which are often well in advance of the turnover of some small national states; namely, countries such as Estonia or Lithuania. Clearly, there are dangers. Those huge companies wield considerable political influence. The offer of foreign direct investment can mean that those companies have considerable influence on national governments. Therefore, it is of vital importance that we have within the European Union a strong measure by which we can, to some extent, hold those companies to account.
The noble Lord, Lord Brittan, said that there was by no means agreement, but those pushing for the term "substantial lessening in competition" were largely the aggrieved American partners who were fed-up at the decision made as regards GEC/Honey-well. It is clear from the evidence of the economists and those involved in the regulatory framework that they substantially endorse that view. Perhaps I may quote from Derek Morris, who felt strongly that the "substantial lessening in competition" was an important concept and a better concept than that of "collective dominance".
He said:
"imagine a set of incumbent firms in the market, perhaps a market in which there has not been any great innovation, and a new entrant appears with new technology, new ideas, new products, and it really threatens the existing companies, so one of them buys it out. It may be a very small company. It may just involve buying this particular computer specialist or whatever. It is almost impossible to apply the concept of dominance, and yet it could very effectively and substantially lessen the competition that would appear in that market. Indeed, you could have a series of such innovative entrants emerging and the incumbents just picking them off one at a time. Of course they will want themselves to develop the innovation of the new company, but their incentive to do it is very much less because to some extent they would be losing out from their pre-existing operations".

1305
That picks up the concept of what the economists call "contestable competition"; that what we are concerned about is the dynamics; that there is the ability for new companies to come into the market and to make their mark.
In his evidence to the Committee, John Vickers stated:
"I see the prime purpose of merger policy as to act as that basic safeguard against competitive market processes being undermined. If one takes that view, there is a sense in which one gets there in one go if one has the test in terms of substantial lessening of competition".
We on these Benches are highly sceptical about mergers and we back the SLC test because it is tougher. We believe that governments, whether at national or European level, should be tough about mergers. We are worried about the emergence of giant international companies and the power and influence they can wield.
It is vital that at the supra-national European level we have effective competition policies, including effective merger control. We are very sceptical on these Benches as to how much benefit derives from mergers. We generally take the view that competition has increased, is increasing, and should be diminished. The tougher the controls exercised, the better.
4.42 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I declare a former interest by reminding noble Lords of my membership of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission—now the Competition Commission—from which I resigned immediately on my elevation to your Lordships' House because of the obvious conflict of interests that could have arisen.
Having said that, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, for his presentation of his committee's report. I also congratulate the committee on the comprehensive way in which it has studied the many problems in regard to mergers within EC law, as well as on its mastery of the alphabet soup of acronyms that issues from EC jargon.
So far five very distinguished noble Lords have spoken. Four served on the committee, one as the chairman and the other three as members, and the fifth, my noble friend Lord Brittan, was not on the committee but his experience and expertise speak for themselves so he did not need to be. I make the point merely because the Minister and I are the only two speakers who were not involved in this. I find it daunting following all of those speakers, knowing very well that I shall be overtaken in due course by the Minister. That is why I am particularly grateful for the useful glossary included in the report.
The inquiry was particularly timely, coming at a moment when the Commission was facing what the Financial Times described as,
"a barrage of criticism from governments, companies and judges".
1306
The report that came before the European Court had rendered a judgment in two cases striking down decisions of the Commission. The committee had already completed taking evidence when a first devastating judgment was given against the Commission in the Airtours/First Choice merger case in June 2002. I wonder whether any of the committee's recommendations would have been even more vigorous than they are—indeed, whether they would have been any different—had it been able to take those judgments into account. I do not in any sense criticise the committee for what it did not and could not possibly have known, what The Times described as,
"the gung ho approach to merger controls",
of the Commission.
The European Court described the merger task force's handling of the Airtours case as,
"not being based on cogent evidence and being vitiated by a series of errors of assessment".
The Commission's response to this devastating judgment was not contrition, but a sign posted in the merger task force's Brussels' office which stated: "Merger Task Force versus the World".
This arrogant attitude was presumably supported by the Competition Commissioner, Professor Monti, who claimed that the Airtours judgment simply showed that Brussels was subject to effective external scrutiny. However, by the time the two further adverse judgments were rendered against his department he had adopted a more contrite attitude.
After admitting that the Commission had in these three cases suffered "unprecedented criticism"— which in some regimes might have resulted in his resignation—Professor Monti told the European Commission/IBA conference on EU merger control that:
"I believe that, in a certain time. with hindsight. we will say that these judgments, no matter how painful, came at a right moment. Indeed there are no doubt lessons to be learned from these judgments; in particular that the Court of First Instance is holding us to a very high standard of proof".
Let me say in passing that, in exercising a powerful quasi-judicial function, the Commission should not have needed the Court to remind it of the elementary duty of being held to a very high standard of proof.
Turning to the substance of the Commission's proposals. it seems that it is in favour of an approach that uses the market dominance test in deciding about a proposed merger, as many noble Lords have mentioned. Quite rightly, your Lordships' Select Committee takes the view that the so-called SLC test— that is, the substantial lessening of competition test—is the more appropriate criterion and one which will inevitably lead to more consistency in its decisions. Again, other nobles Lords have made that point.
That is also the view of witnesses who gave evidence to the committee, such as the TUC and Professor Kay. It is also the view of the Government and most European competition experts. Not only does the test conform to the test applied in the United States; it is also in accordance with the views of the Director-General of Fair Trading, who attacked the dominance

1307
test with a favourite quotation of mine. I thought my quotation would be fresh but the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches half used it earlier. It states:
"'When I use a word', Humpty Dumpty said, 'It means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less"'.
That is the classic definition of a subjective test, when what is required—especially in view of the dismal record of the merger task force—is an entirely objective one that can be measured by something other than a flawed opinion or a philosophical approach. Despite the overwhelming support for the purely objective SLC test from all around the world, the best that Professor Monti can propose is a kind of offer—one could call it a grudging offer—to clarify the meaning of "dominance".
It was suggested that applying the SLC test might lead to more applications being made to the Commission, but I cannot see why it should, because applications would be based on more clearly defined facts rather than on opinions. It might also concentrate the minds of the Commission on not shooting at everything in sight in a kind of Pavlovian reaction to every large merger that comes before it.
As regards a philosophical approach, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I digress for a moment to tell you about my own personal experience in Europe. When I expanded my successful United Kingdom mail order business into Germany, I was immediately assailed by two cases alleging that I was guilty of unfair competition. Me! Unfair competition! Noble Lords know that I would not be involved with that.
In one case it was said that I was charging too much for my goods, whereas in the other case, which came before the Kartellamt—the competition court— on exactly the same day, I was accused of unfairly competing because I was charging too little. Both cases were heard in the same court on the same day. I had to fight no fewer than 18 separate law suits before I could convince the German courts and competitors that I was there to stay, with a better mousetrap that I had built, and that I was not unfair to the consumer or to the competitor. Your Lordships will therefore understand why I view the EC's approach, with its sometimes rigid attitude to competition, with some scepticism.
The Commission is discussing procedures intended to save parties from having to make multiple applications to member states, and it is acknowledged that the current rules under Article 1(3) of the EC treaty are extremely complex and cumbersome.
The suggestion is that the new so-called "three plus" rule should be imposed—that is, when a filing is necessary in three or more member states, the Commission should have jurisdiction. Despite the fact that the committee embraces this idea, I personally— I stress that this is a personal view—have reservations for two reasons: first, because, as the Select Committee points out:
"It is possible for international transactions to affect purely national markets; in those circumstances such transactions were often better dealt with by the relevant National Competition Authority".
1308
Secondly, I personally doubt whether three states should be the criterion when the EL currently has 15 states, and will soon have 25. With such a multiplicity of states—some of them less commercially sophisticated than others, to put it politely, and some only recently emerging from bureaucratic regimes—applications might have to be made in circumstances where it would be simpler only to apply in those countries where the merger was actually relevant.
A higher number than three might be better. But, as ever, I defer to the committee's view, and that of the Commission, that three-plus is the correct level. I hope, however, that the level will be kept under review when it is seen how it operates in practice, since it is obvious that the greater number of applications that have to be referred to the Commission instead of the individual national committees, the greater might be the degree of interference in commercial transactions by the Commission instead of by the states that are actually involved.
The other reason for limiting the extent of EC interference in mergers is the principle of subsidiarity which the former Prime Minister, John Major, established for the benefit of the United Kingdom at the time of the Maastricht Treaty.
There may be occasions when a merger with cross-border implications is nevertheless of real concern to just one state. Let us suppose that an international airline is in serious difficulty, and suppose that the solution is either merger with another airline or for a "White Knight" to come to its rescue. This is a case where the national competition authority could be the sole judge, able to make a speedy decision rather than going through the cumbersome procedures of. the Commission, which could cause such delay that the struggling company could collapse, thereby reducing the market by one business in any case.
It would not be right simply to substitute interference from Brussels with interference from Whitehall—which is why it is right that we should have a strong Competition Commission operating in this country. The matter of the composition of the merger task force also comes into question after the debacle of the three adverse judgments. These three judgments, in the words of an article in the Financial Times of October 28th last, have:
"Laid bare a long-standing deficiency of the Merger Task Force: the lack of economic expertise".
Professor Monti is himself an economist, and it is reported in the same article that he wants to bolster the Commission's economic expertise by appointing a chief economist and several junior economists. The committee states in its report that,
"the Commission should certainly strengthen its overall capacity for economic analysis in merger cases".
I noted that, in introducing the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, highlighted that part of the report.
Of course it is important to start the merger task force with economists and with whatever expertise it currently requires from its employees, but I suggest that it might not do any harm if some experienced business people or industrialists were involved. I mean

1309
no disrespect to economists, and certainly not to any economists who may be present, but George Bernard Shaw once said
"If all the economists in the world were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion".
It would do no harm if the task force included some successful business people and industrialists—people who have been out in the world and have created some wealth, and who have established or run businesses, and not merely people who have failed and are seeking a less demanding position—ones who, in the classic American phrase, know what it is like to meet a payroll every week or every month.
On 25th October 2002, Professor Monti suggested that the wheels of justice might be speeded up by creating a special competition court within the European Court of Justice. Far be it from me to suggest that the criticism that he recently received from the ECJ had anything to do with that particular idea. However, the idea would load more cost on to the EC. It would probably result in insistence by each of the 15 EC members—soon to be increased to 25—appointing their own competition judge and having the decisions translated into all of their national languages.
I spoke earlier of the philosophical aspects of the regulation of mergers. There is, not for the first time, a vast difference in approach between the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe. In the rest of Europe, the test of a merger can be prohibited only if it creates or strengthens a dominant position. That means that if a company is already in a dominant position, a permanent lid is put on further expansion.
The Select Committee has produced a massive and carefully reasoned report and has made no fewer than 31 recommendations to your Lordships. It is not necessary for every Member of this House to agree with every one of those recommendations for me to say, nevertheless, that the report has provided us with a great deal of food for thought and a great deal of common sense.
I can only hope that Her Majesty's Government will take the report to heart and, more importantly, will ensure that it is also given serious consideration by Brussels, which has to remember that its task is simply to ensure that there is a fair and free market in the EC.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in welcoming the report of the European Union Committee on the review of the EC Merger Regulation and I congratulate the committee and the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, on producing an outstanding and extremely effective report. We have had an excellent debate.
The Government support the great majority of the findings and recommendations in the Select Committee's report. The committee's position on all the major issues is very close to the Government's own. We agree in particular with the report's assessment of the priority issues for the review: improving the system of internal checks and balances; changing the
1310
substantive test at the heart of the regime to one of "substantial lessening of competition"; and implementing a simpler, more predictable system of deciding jurisdiction based on the principle that mergers should be examined by the authority best placed to do so. Our own response to the European Commission's Green Paper focused on those three key areas.
As the House will be aware, the European Commission recently published its proposals for amendments to the merger regulation itself, which will come before the European Council for consideration in due course. I know that it considered the Select Committee's report in drawing up its proposals, and in this sense the Select Committee report has already had a very successful impact. It may be that having an impact on the Commission's view is a more satisfying outcome even than early debates on the report. The report has been extremely effective and many of its considerations have been taken on board.
I emphasise that in our view the EC Merger Regulation is a success story. I was pleased to hear the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Brittan. He was the Commissioner responsible for competition matters when the regulation was first brought into force. He is to be congratulated on introducing a regulation which, in the 12 years since it came into force, has become embedded as one of the cornerstones of European competition law.
The Commission has responded with great success to the huge challenge of enforcing the regulation rigorously but fairly, despite an exponential increase in its caseload. As the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, reminded us, in 1990 there were only 12 mergers notified under the regulation; in 2001 there were more than 300. I make the point because I believe that it is important to keep the system's fundamental strengths in mind when considering possible improvements to it. Having said that, the system's strengths do not mean that there is no room for improvement.
As I said earlier, we attach priority to three key issues, as did the committee. First. priority must be given to the possibility of improving the checks and balances in the EC Merger Regulation system. The results of our consultation of key UK stakeholders and the wider debate on the Green Paper indicated that this was clearly the main issue of concern to those using the ECM R system.
The European Commission has announced a number of changes to its internal working methods to address some of these concerns. We welcome its appointment of a chief economist, which should improve the quality of the economic analysis in merger cases. I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that economic analysis is key to these cases. A high level of expertise is essential to getting them right, even if we do not always feel that the people involved understand the problems of business as we should like them to.
We welcome, too, the decision to appoint a panel to review individual cases, which should go some way to ensuring that the Commission's analysis of mergers is

1311
subject to robust scrutiny. We do, however, believe that there are further steps that the Commission could and should consider taking to maintain confidence in the system.
Secondly, we believe there is a clear need to reconsider the way in which jurisdiction over mergers is divided between the Commission on the one hand and the member states on the other. This is not a turf war; the question is simply whether changes to the current arrangements could improve the chances of merger cases being considered by the competition authority best placed to do the job without compromising clarity and certainty for business. We are studying carefully the Commission's proposed amendments to the relevant articles of the merger regulation and will want to ensure that they provide a rapid, predictable and effective mechanism for allocating cases to the most appropriate competition authority.
Thirdly. there is the question of the substantive test used in the assessment of mergers, which has played a prominent role in the debate. The Enterprise Act will introduce a competition test for the new UK merger regime based on the concept of a substantial lessening of competition—or SLC. We see benefits in a move to SLC in the EC Merger Regulation from the current substantive test, which is based on the different concept of "dominance". We are disappointed that, although the Commission has sought to clarify the way in which the substantive test is applied, it has not taken the opportunity to introduce an SLC test into the regulation, despite support for its introduction from a great number of respondents to the Green Paper.
An SLC test has been selected for the new UK merger regime for good reasons. It is not correct to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, said, that it is simply a question of American pressure.
Lord Britton of Spennithorne: My Lords, I did not say that.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I take the point that the noble Lord did not say that the UK one was selected for that reason.
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: My Lords, I said that the loudest voices arguing for it were the Americans', not that that was why it was introduced by the present Government or why the committee came down in its favour.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I accept the noble Lord's point. I want to make it clear that there are substantial arguments, from an economist's point of view, in selecting these tests, and that they are independent from the arguments of others who may want to support that view.
We believe that the test is fundamentally better adapted to merger control than is "dominance". Its advantages lie primarily in the fact that it is more directly grounded in economic principles, thus
1312
providing the UK competition authorities with greater flexibility to deal with all forms of anti-competitive mergers. I agree with the noble Lord. Lord Hannay, that the introduction of SLC at European level would therefore be an important strengthening of the European competition regime.
The most important benefit, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, would be to plug potential gaps in the dominance test in a straightforward way. That would minimise the risk of any anti-competitive mergers slipping through the Commission's net. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord 13rittan and Lord Hannay, that it would not be less restrictive. It would also bring the ECMR into line with other key international merger regimes, including that of the United States, which can only be of benefit as the importance of international co-operation in competition enforcement increases. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, that that would not lead to substantial disruption.
Such a change would not amount to a radical overhaul of the ECMR system. The current system is basically a sound one, and a move to SLC would in all probability not alter the way in which the Commission goes about its job in the great majority of cases. However, adopting SLC could bring real benefits in analysing certain types of merger. We will therefore continue to argue the case for the introduction of SLC in a revised merger regulation.
The coming months will be important in shaping the new regulation. We will be consulting stakeholders closely on the Commission's latest publications and will continue press for changes to the regulation to address UK priorities during the ongoing negotiations.
The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, raised the question of member state jurisdiction. The Commission originally proposed in its Green Paper a system whereby mergers subject to three or more national filings would fall to the ECMR regime. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is incorrect to refer to the three-plus test, as the Commission has moved away from it in its revised proposals. It has made a new set of proposals, which it believes will simplify the way in which cases can be allocated to a competition authority and then, if necessary, transferred between member states and the Commission. based on amendments to articles 9 and 22 of the ECMR, including their use at a pre-notification stage. We want to consider the proposals carefully to ensure that they achieve the desired results.
Under the new proposals, the parties would approach the Commission during pre-notification discussions and request that the matter be dealt with either by them or the member states. The Commission would then work with the concerned member states before considering whether to apply a new pre-notification referral mechanism to the case. That mechanism mirrors the one in place in articles 9 and 22 but sets strict time limits in which decisions must be taken on where the case should be handled. We look forward to working with other member states during

1313
the negotiating phase to ensure that the mechanism leads to cases being dealt with by the best placed authorities.
The noble Lords, Lord Grenfell and Lord Brittan, raised the question whether the European merger process should include an efficiency defence. The Commission's recently published proposals make clear its view that the current regulations provide a sufficient legal basis for efficiencies to be taken into consideration. We welcome the recent publication of draft guidance on how efficiencies would be considered by the Commission.
Efficiency considerations can have a part to play in merger analysis. In a minority of cases, efficiencies may flow from a merger that actually reduces competition. A restrictive approach needs to be taken in consideration of such efficiencies, and we need to take a tough line on the issue. To be relevant to merger analysis, efficiencies must be likely to be passed on to consumers, be expected to be delivered in a reasonable time frame, and be unlikely to be achieved in the absence of a merger.
The noble Lords, Lord Brittan and Lord Hannay, raised the question of accountability. We have already made clear that we see merit in the introduction of a second pair of eyes in the ECMR system, and are pleased that the Commission has announced that it will establish review panels to consider individual cases as part of the process. However, we agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that second case teams considering individual mergers would be even better. The ECMR system of administrative authorisation rather than judicial authorisation is appropriate and proportionate for mergers, but again there is room for improvement.
The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, expressed concern at the Commission's resource constraints. The Government made clear in their response to the Select Committee's report that it is essential that the necessary resources are provided to maintain the effective equitable and transparent implementation of the ECM R. The Government agree that the Commission should therefore give careful consideration to the question of whether procedural improvements following the ECMR review will require the provision of additional resources to the Competition Directorate-General.
In closing, I say again that we believe that the EC merger regime has functioned very well in the vast majority of cases. Its one-stop shop approach has been a key strength and a benefit to business. In 2001 the European Commission received notification of 335 mergers, 299 of which were cleared speedily without any competition concerns needing to be addressed. Indeed, since the regime's inception in 1990 only 18 notified mergers have been prohibited.
The three recent decisions by the Court of First Instance overturning aspects of the European Commission's decisions on certain mergers are unfortunate but I do not think they mean that the whole system is inherently flawed. The review provides
1314
an opportunity to take stock and to improve some of the areas which it has been argued constitute weaknesses in the current system. The Government will continue to press the Commission on those areas which we have identified as important for the review: better checks and balances; improvements to the process of determining jurisdiction; and the introduction of a test based on the concept of substantial lessening of competition.
The coming months will be important in shaping the changes to the EC merger regulation and we shall be working closely with the European Commission and other member states to ensure that our priorities are reflected. We believe that the introduction of an SLC test would be an important strengthening of the European competition regime. We want a merger regime that is transparent and based on sound economic principles so that businesses can conduct their activities within a clear framework.
The Select Committee's report is a very useful contribution to the ongoing debate and our response to it illustrates how much agreement there is between the Government and the committee. The Government are grateful to all those who took part in the preparation of the report and to all those who have taken part in the debate.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I thank all those who took part in the debate from both the Front and the Back Benches for their excellent contributions to what was a most interesting and well informed discussion on this important issue. I particularly appreciate the Minister's thoughtful and encouraging reply.
I wish to take up briefly two points. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is surely right to say that the argument over the substantive test is by no means over. It will certainly come back. My own view on that—if I may reinforce it—is that as the Commission reinforces its economic capability to look at mergers, it is likely that the dominance test will move towards the SLC in everything but name, and that it is only a question of time before this change takes place and we shall eventually move, as I hope, to the SLC.
I was interested in the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, on the loss of jurisprudence. We recognised in our discussions that there certainly would be a short-term loss of certainty. But we also feel strongly that that can be compensated for if the Commission issues clear guidelines on how it intends to interpret an SLC test, if there is one. We believe that that would remove much of the uncertainty and compensate for a loss of jurisprudence.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, suggested that it was too late for us to take Airtours into account. However, Airtours had given evidence to us so we were able to incorporate that into our conclusions. But it is a matter of record that Commissioner Monti came into his job just five days before the Airtours decision was given in court. He got rather a "bum rap", as the Americans would say, when he was hit over the head by the media for that result. I

1315
have known him a long time. Frankly, I consider him one of the least arrogant international civil servants that I have ever come across. I refer to subsequent cases which he lost in the courts. However, everything that we, had heard from him prior to that indicated that he was fully aware of the relevant problems and had a great determination to set things straight.
I end simply by commending the report to your Lordships' House and also to the Government as they enter the negotiations in which we wish them well. It looks as though they have some good material and the right attitude as they go into the negotiations in the Council.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Regulatory Reform (Credit Unions) Order 2003
5.16 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft regulatory reform order laid before the House on 16th December 2002 be approved [6th Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Government support the valuable role that credit unions play in tackling financial exclusion and widening access to affordable credit. Their ethos of thrift and self-help, together with their ability to offer savings and affordable credit, particularly for those with modest means, have enabled them to extend the availability of basic financial services to parts of our society that are often ignored by other providers. I believe that this order will play a part in strengthening the position of credit unions into the future. This order also supports this Government's commitment to regulatory reform and reducing the burdens that firms face in financial and retail markets.
The order is designed to increase the operational flexibility of credit unions. I shall briefly outline the three separate proposals by which the order seeks to achieve this increased flexibility. First, it will allow credit unions to charge fees to their members for providing ancillary services. Existing legislation does not prevent credit unions from offering ancillary services to their members. However, there is an absence of explicit powers for them to charge for such services. The order will give legal certainty that credit unions can charge for certain ancillary services, such as direct debit and money transmission services.
We believe that the ability to recover costs of ancillary services will encourage more credit unions to offer such services—currently where they are offered, credit unions tend to spread the costs of providing this service across the whole membership. Greater provision of these services will increase choice for credit union members. I should also make clear that the order will only permit credit unions to charge a fee to cover the cost of providing the service in question; credit unions will not be able to make a profit from providing ancillary services.
Secondly, the order increases the range of combinations of common bonds. There is a requirement on credit union members to meet a specific qualification to be eligible to join and therefore form what is called a common bond. The legislation sets out some permitted common bond qualifications. The list has grown over the years and this amendment would facilitate certain combinations of common bonds that are currently not permitted. For example, it would allow credit unions to admit members linked by association (for example, belonging to the same organisation or living in the same neighbourhood) and certain other permitted qualifications. To give a precise example, the order would allow a credit union with a common bond based on membership at a particular church or place of worship to join forces and merge with one which served the local borough or community. The proposal allows new credit unions or credit unions which wish to merge to adopt a wider common bond of membership.
Finally, the order will also allow action to be taken against persons using the name "credit union" inappropriately. The 1979 Act sets out the rules governing the use of the name "credit union" which have never been brought into force because they would have had unintended consequences. For example, it would have prevented US credit unions from representing themselves at conferences or conventions in the United Kingdom without facing the risk of prosecution. The order aims to remove those unintended consequences so that provisions can be brought into force to protect the use of the name "credit union" and thereby protect the reputation of the movement.
The impetus for the order came from a package of seven deregulatory measures that the Treasury brought forward to complement the Financial Services Authority's new regulatory regime for credit unions, introduced on 2nd July 2002. The Treasury consulted widely on the seven proposals and received significant—in fact, almost unanimous— support for them. Four of the seven proposals have already been implemented through the Financial Services Authority's rule-making powers. The order is necessary to bring into force the remaining three proposals.
The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform concluded that, within the meaning of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, the proposals would reduce the burdens that the Treasury had identified, maintain necessary protections, not prevent the continuing exercise of existing rights and freedoms, and achieve a fair balance. I thank the members of the committee for the time that they spent scrutinising the proposals, and for recommending the order to the House. I confirm that the order conforms with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The relevant committee in another place also considered that the proposals reduced burdens, and the order was unanimously approved there. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulatory reform order laid before the House on 16th December 2002 be approved [6th Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
5.21 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed description of this proposal for the order. New to the Front Bench as a shadow Treasury spokesman, I now have my first opportunity to respond to a proposal for a draft regulatory reform, so I am delighted to speak on credit unions, a subject that I know well and on which I am passionately keen.
While chairman of the National Consumer Council, whose job it is to represent consumers with a special brief to represent the voice of the disadvantaged consumer, I was privileged to lead its campaign in the 1990s to encourage the formation of credit unions. We wanted to popularise them in this country as a means of saving and loans, particularly for people on very low incomes who often had no access to credit, other than loan sharks who charged huge interest rates that they often could not meet, which caused misery and despair.
I am heartened to note that between 650 and 700 credit unions are registered in Britain. Last year, membership exceeded 325,000 people. The Conservative Party wishes to do all it can to encourage valid credit unions and the self-help service that they mutually provide. Therefore, along with the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform of this House and the Select Committee on Regulatory Reform in another place, we want to support the order.
As we understand it—the Minister described it so well—the order will enable credit unions to charge for the provision of services such as bill payments on a cost-recovery basis. It will increase the range of combinations of the common bonds, and will establish appropriate regulation on the use of the name "credit union", thereby enabling action to be taken against persons using the name inappropriately. We, and I especially, support the regulatory reform.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I begin by welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, to Treasury debates. We look forward to many further speeches from her on similar occasions. I join her and the Minister in underscoring our support for the good work undertaken by credit unions. Recent publicity about the levels of interest charged on loans to extremely vulnerable members of society by bodies other than credit unions has demonstrated how difficult it is in many cases for those who do not have bank accounts and credit cards to get credit on a fair basis. The credit unions offer an alternative that is more satisfactory in virtually every way.
I have watched at some distance the attempts to create a credit union in Lambeth. From that, I know that creating one is extremely difficult. The rules are
1318
complicated, and the requirements strict and inflexible. Although that is sensible and good in many respects, when one gets into the financial affairs of people, there is always a risk that those who are unscrupulous will try to take advantage of it. At present, however, the balance is almost too heavily weighted towards prudence. The changes, especially the first two and possibly in the range of combinations allowed within the meaning of "credit union'', will be welcomed by people who are trying to fit their group of people who want to form a credit union into a "credit union" straitjacket.
I have only one question for the Minister. I know that the FSA and the Treasury have looked at slightly loosening the straitjacket, and several measures that he mentioned will be very welcome. However, I wonder whether the order is the end of the process? Is there a sense that the balance is now right, or will the FSA keep the question under review? Despite the ever-increasing proportion of the population that has access to conventional bank accounts and credit, credit unions will clearly continue to play a major part for the vulnerable and poorer sections of society well into the future. I would welcome any comment that he might have about whether the order is the end of the process, or whether there may be a further look to see whether it might be even more straightforward to set up such estimable organisations.
5.27 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the way in which they received the order. I am particularly glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, is on the Opposition Front Bench dealing with Treasury questions. She may be new to that position but she certainly knows more about credit unions, I should think, than anyone else in the House. Her support for the order is very welcome.
I was trying to cut down on what I was saying so I did not go into the four aspects of the regulation of credit unions which were dealt with last year using the rule-making powers of the Financial Services Authority. Those were: allowing credit unions to borrow money from existing sources other than authorised banks and other credit unions; allowing credit unions to differentiate between certain accounts by paying dividends at different rates and to pay dividends more than once a year; changing the minimum coverage requirements for fidelity bonds; and allowing credit unions to offer up accounts that may be held in the name of more than one member. Those are significant reductions which the FSA was able to do off its own bat, so to speak, without requiring parliamentary approval.
My point in response to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is that credit unions have not yet started to take up the changes that were made last July. That does not mean that those changes are not welcome and will not be taken up, but credit unions must change their own rules first. The Association of British Credit Unions and other promoting bodies are encouraging them to do that. That means that we perhaps need a short pause to allow all of the seven deregulatory

1319
measures to take effect before we introduce further changes. We do not really want a permanent revolution, in the Trotskyite sense, in the credit union movement.
We do not see this approach as the end of the process. We will continue to talk to the movement to see whether we can help it. If the group of people from Lambeth to whom the noble Lord, Lord Newby, referred would like to write to the Treasury about the matter, I am sure that that could be taken into account in any coming round of further deregulation. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox,
1320
were entirely right to say that these credit unions provide something that is particularly important in these days, when loan sharks are only too common. One only has to read otherwise reputable newspapers to see the sort of offers that are being made. Even with the rules about advertising credit, some people are still clearly exploiting the vulnerable, and credit unions can help to prevent that. On that basis, I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at half-past five o'clock.

  Iraq: Call-out of Reservists
  Baroness David
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they have any plans to call out further reservists as part of their continuing contingency preparations for Iraq. [HL1409]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)
  In the statement made by my right honourable friend the Defence Secretary (Mr Hoon) on 7 January (Official Report, cols. 23–5) in another place we informed the House that we had 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. We explained that the overall scale of mobilisation would depend upon the continuing evolution of our contingency planning, that we envisaged initially sending out sufficient call-out notices to secure around 1,500 reservists, and that we would issue further notices as appropriate.

  That process of calling out and mobilising reservists is under way. By 24 January, the services had issued 2,063 notices. As was explained in the Statement on 7 January, the number of notices issued has to be significantly larger than the number of reservists required to allow for the proportion who are likely to be genuinely unavailable.

  Further contingency planning has now clarified the likely size and shape of our additional requirements, in particular in the light of the decision we reached recently on the size and composition of land forces that we plan to deploy, which was described in the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Defence Secretary (Mr Hoon) on 20 January (Official Report, cols. 34–5) in another place. Our latest assessment is that our overall requirement for reservists is likely to be up to 6,000, including those currently in the process of mobilisation. We will now issue further call-out notices over the coming weeks to enable us to meet this requirement. The size of the requirement will remain under review as our planning continues.

  Legal Services Ombudsman
  Lord Prys-Davies
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What progress they are making with regard to the recruitment of the Legal Services Ombudsman.[HL1362]

  The lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg)
  I am pleased to report that I have appointed Dr Zahida Manzoor as Legal Services Ombudsman.
  WA 174
  The appointment is for a three-year fixed term in the first instance and Dr Manzoor is expected to take up post on 3 March 2003.

  Dr Manzoor is co-founder and marketing director of her own company. She was formerly a member of the NHS Policy Board, regional chair of the NHS Executive, Northern and Yorkshire Regions, Commissioner and deputy chair of the Commission for Racial Equality and chair of the Bradford Health Authority.

  British Energy plc
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What estimates they have received from (a) Credit Suisse First Boston and (b) Slaughter and May of the fees they are likely to charge for advising them in relation to the financial restructuring of British Energy plc; and [HL1221]

  What fees they have so far paid to (a) Credit Suisse First Boston and (b) Slaughter and May for advising them in relation to the financial restructuring of British Energy plc. [HL1222]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)
  In the light of the uncertainty over the duration and nature of any restructuring of British Energy while its restructuring proposals are considered by the company's creditors, the Government have not requested estimates from any adviser of likely fees over the longer term. Short-term estimates are requested, as appropriate, as part of overall adviser monitoring. To date, the department has been invoiced for or paid around £2.7 million to Credit Suisse First Boston and around £2 million to Slaughter and May.

  British Electricity (Trading and 'Transmission) Bill
  Baroness Gale
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  When they will publish the draft Electricity (Trading and Transmission) Bill. [HL1408]

  Lord Sainsbury of Turville
  The draft Electricity (Trading and Transmission) Bill, which will bring forward the British Electricity Transmission and Trading Arrangements (BETTA), is being published today. The Trade and Industry Committee will now undertake pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill and will issue a report by Easter. Copies of the draft Bill and draft explanatory notes are available in the House Library. A regulatory impact assessment has been published on DTI and Ofgem's website.

  Glyphosate Resistant Weeds
  Lord Hylton
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will investigate the emergence of round-up resistant (glyphosate tolerant) weeds in the states of Delaware, Maryland, Western Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana and California before taking further decisions about genetically modified crops in Britain. [HL1114]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty)
  The Government are aware of the emergence of glyphosate resistant weeds resulting from the continuous use of this herbicide on some genetically modified herbicide tolerant (GMht) soya crops in Amercia. Over the past 30 years or more (before the advent of GM crop cultivation), continual use of herbicides has imposed selection pressure for increased resistance within weed species that were formally susceptible. There are several characteristics of herbicides and their use that are thought to contribute to a high risk for selection of resistance in weeds. Glyphosate meets these criteria and is one of the herbicides to which resistant weeds have evolved.

  An international survey of herbicide resistant weeds identified Horseweed (Conyza Canadensis) as the main glyphosate resistant weed in America (in Delaware, Tennessee, Indiana, Maryland, New Jersey and Ohio). The only other glyphosate resistance species identified in this survey was in California—rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum—please refer to http://www.weedscience.org/in.asp). As Horseweed and rye grass are not sexually compatible with soya (Glycine max), glyphosate resistance was not acquired through the transfer of genes from the herbicide resistant soya.

  Part of the UK's pesticide regulatory regime requires pesticide approval holders to address the risk of resistance and, if applicable, produce a management strategy to avoid or manage resistance. This applies equally to GMht and conventional crops alike. In addition, under the GMO safety legislation (Directive 2001/18/EU), management strategies applied to GM crops are considered as part of a detailed risk assessment.

  Scott Henderson Inquiry
  Lord Henley
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they support the conclusions of the 1951 Scott Henderson inquiry with particular regard to cruelty and suffering. [HL1159]

  Lord Whitty
  The definition of cruelty adopted by the Scott Henderson inquiry into cruelty to wild animals was the causing of unnecessary suffering.

  The report recommended that all wild animals should be brought within the provisions of the Protection of Animals Acts, but:

  "nothing in the Act should apply to the commission or omission of any act in the course of hunting, pursuit, capture, destruction or attempted destruction
  WA 176
  of any wild animal unless such hunting etc., was accompanied by the infliction of unnecessary suffering" (paragraph 419).

  The Government agree with the definition of cruelty contained in the Scott Henderson report, which is well established in law. The key purpose of the Hunting Bill is to prevent the unnecessary suffering—that is, the cruelty—associated with hunting with dogs. The Bill recognises the need to deal with pests and to protect livestock and crops but would permit hunting for this purpose only where there is no other method reasonably available that would cause less suffering.

  The Government set up their own inquiry, the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England and Wales (the Burns report). The Burns report and related documents were published in 2000. My right honourable friend the Minister for Rural Affairs also undertook a wide-ranging consultation exercise which has been praised by both sides of the debate as uniquely open, transparent and fair, My right honourable friend met a large range of organisations and individuals to listen to their views. He also undertook three days of public hearings in Portcullis House in September. This work has informed the drafting of the Hunting Bill, published on 3 December 2002.

  Farm Income, Output and Productivity of Agriculture
  Lord Prys-Davies
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  When they will publish revised estimates of farm income, output and productivity of agriculture during 2002. [HL1363]

  Lord Whitty
  Revised estimates of farm income, output and productivity of agriculture during 2002 were published on 30 January. These confirm the increase in farm incomes forecast last November and indicate a rise of 15 per cent (14 in real terms) compared to 2001.

  Details have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council
  Lord Acton
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What was the outcome of the meeting of the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council held on 3 December: and what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including their voting record. [HL1410]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health represented the United Kingdom for the health element of the first day of the Employment, Social
  WA 177
  Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council in Brussels on 2 December 2002; the consumer affairs items were also taken on that day.

  The main health business of this Council related to tobacco. The Council reached qualified majority on a first reading deal on the Tobacco Advertising Directive. My right honourable friend emphasised that the UK supports European Union legislation on tobacco advertising, having strong domestic legislation in place. He made clear the Government's determination to ensure that the legal victories secured by the tobacco companies over previous European legislation would not be repeated with this directive. He therefore voted against the directive because he did not think that the drafting of some provisions was good enough or that it went as far as it could in some areas (for example, by not covering cigarette papers).

  A Council recommendation on the prevention of smoking and on initiatives to improve tobacco control was adopted by a qualified majority, with support from the UK. The Commission also gave an update on the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

  Member states set out their positions on the pharmaceuticals reviews, with a discussion on three key outstanding issues in the European Medicines Evaluation Agency (EMEA) Regulation. There was no vote on this item. On scope, the UK was among several member states who spoke out against extension of the centralised procedure for human medicines and in favour of a choice for companies. Others supported the Commission. Most felt that member states should appoint at least one member to the management board. Many were willing to consider also accepting representatives of patient groups or the European Parliament. A majority of member states and the Commission were able to accept the Presidency compromise of a single renewal of an authorisation after five years.

  Council adopted a recommendation on the prevention and reduction of risks associated with drug dependence. Council conclusions on action against obesity were adopted unanimously. The UK voted in favour of both of these items.

  The Presidency presented a progress report on negotiations on a directive setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, storage and distribution of human cells and tissues. The Commission said that it would look carefully at the changes in scope the Council was proposing in relation to the medicinal products and medical devices directives.

  The Commission updated the Council on the high level process of reflection on patient mobility and health care development and on the programme of co-operation on bioterrorism and health security. The Commission will be tabling a proposal to set up a network centre for disease control in May 2003, to be set up in 2005. The aim is to enhance the EU capacity to prevent the spread of communicable diseases, working closely with member states' own institutions.
  WA 178
  The Commission reported that it had established a working group to consider the quality of information on Internet sites in the health sector. The group, consisting of representatives from government, non-government organisations and industry, has reported and agreed actions, including measures on transparency, privacy and accountability. The Commission will monitor work through the E-Europe 2005 Action Plan.

  Items under any other business included an information paper from Ireland on post-polio syndrome. There was also a brief discussion on the follow-up to the G10 initiative on the pharmaceutical industry. A Commission communication was under preparation and should issue in May 2003. Italy announced it would have an informal ministerial meeting on this during its Presidency. Finally, there was a presentation from Belgium on its candidate for the director-generalship of the WHO, Peter Piot.

  The consumer part of the Council met with minimal discussion over a short agenda.

  The Council adopted a resolution on Community consumer policy strategy 2002–06 without debate, endorsing the aims and objectives of the Commission's strategy as published in May 2002, namely a high common level of consumer protection, effective enforcement and the involvement of consumer organisations. The UK voted in favour, as did all other member states.

  The Council and the Commission endorsed the Presidency's conclusions on a joint Commission-UK seminar held in November on using consumer statistics to inform and prioritise consumer policy. In accordance with the conclusions, the Commission will take forward technical work on definitions and the comparability of consumer statistics.

  As an information point only, the Council took note of a Commission presentation on the preliminary results of the European Extra-Judicial Network (EEJ-Net), the EU network of clearing houses designed to facilitate and resolve cross-border, out-of-court consumer disputes.

  Finally, Greece informed the Council that it wanted to contribute to the consumer agenda during its forthcoming Presidency by strengthening its involvement in the internal market. It highlighted in particular a seminar on the Commission's Green Paper on consumer protection to be held with the Commission and Sweden on 24 February 2003 and a ministerial conference on unfair trading to be held on 7 May 2003.

  Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council

    Children's Interests
    Lord Hoyle
    asked Her Majesty's Government:

    Whether they will appoint a co-ordinator whose responsibility would be to promote children's interests across government departments. [HL1018]
    WA 179
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland)
    I agree with the noble Lord that the interests of children need to be promoted across government. This is why the Children and Young People's Unit (CYPU) was set up, with a remit to ensure that issues concerning children and young people are represented and taken into consideration in government policy and to influence policy in the interest of children and young people. This role is further endorsed by the 2002 Spending Review settlement.

    Children's interests are also co-ordinated and promoted through the Minister for Young People and the Cabinet Committee on Children and Young People's Services, which comprises Secretaries of State from 11 government departments with a key interest in policies and services for children and young people. The Government are currently exploring the pros and cons of establishing a children's commissioner.

    Languages Strategy
    Lord Lester of Herne Hill
    asked Her Majesty's Government:

    What are their priorities for the allocation of public funds as between funding of initial teacher training primary places in (a) French (b) Spanish (c) German and (d) each of the other European Union languages respectively. [HL1073]

    Baroness Ashton of Upholland
    Our Languages Strategy makes clear that primary schools will be expected to offer an EU language as part of the language entitlement. We are funding initial teacher training primary places in French, Spanish and German for 2003–04 to support that expectation and to reflect their popularity. The allocation of primary language ITT places will be finalised in February.

    The strategy also sets out our intention to increase the number of ITT places for modern foreign languages in subsequent years. ITT allocations for other European languages will be considered for 2004–05, based on demand from schools and ITT providers.

    Lord Lester of Herne Hill
    asked Her Majesty's Government:

    Further to the Written Answer by Baroness Ashton of Upholland on 13 January (WA 24) what are their priorities for the allocation of public funds for each element of the national Languages Strategy for England. [HL1074]

    Baroness Ashton of Upholland
    Our main priority is to achieve a step change in language competency in this country, create an appetite for learning and broaden and enrich opportunities for language learning at school and beyond. In the current funding period, our main priorities will be the development of a recognition scheme, increasing teacher and specialist non-teacher supply, the appointment of a national WA 180
    director for languages, the development of international partnerships and the creation of Pathfinder projects to support the introduction of an entitlement to language learning in primary schools.

    Advanced Teaching Assistants
    Baroness Blatch
    asked Her Majesty's Government:

    What is the anticipated cost of training advanced teaching assistants to qualify for supervising whole classes in school. [HL1113]

    Baroness Ashton of Upholland
    The proposal to establish standards and training for the new role of higher level teaching assistant is included in my department's consultation document Developing the role of school support staff. The costs of training for the role will depend inevitably on decisions about the model of training, which will not be made until the outcomes of the consultation are known after its deadline of 22 January 2003.

    Oxford and Cambridge Colleges
    Earl Russell
    asked Her Majesty's Government:

    Whether they will list (a) public Acts of Parliament and (b) private Acts of Parliament which would need to be amended or repealed if they were to attempt to end the autonomy of Oxford and Cambridge colleges. [HL1255]

    Baroness Ashton of Upholland
    We have no plans to change the autonomy of Oxford and Cambridge colleges and have not considered what amendments would be necessary to amend or repeal the various private Acts and other legislation relating to Oxford and Cambridge universities and their constituent colleges.

    Late Night Licences
    Lord Avebury
    asked Her Majesty's Government:

    How many late night licences have been withdrawn on evidence presented by the Metropolitan Police. [HL898]

    The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone)
    Information is not held centrally on the number of justices' on-licences which have a special hours certificate and public entertainment licences permitting late night music and dancing that have been revoked or not renewed.

    Gambling Machine Payment Methods
    Lord Fearn
    asked Her Majesty's Government:

    When passing legislation on the modernising of gambling machine payment methods, whether they

    WA 181
    will deregulate to allow the use of banknotes and prepaid smart cards in addition to coinage in gaming machines. [HL1284]

    Baroness Blackstone
    That remains our intention. In A Safe Bet fin. Success, which the Government published in March 2002 and which set out our plans for the overall reform of the controls on gambling, we said that we would change the law on adults-only gaming machines to allow them to use these payment methods. In March 2001, we consulted on proposals to achieve these objectives by means of an order under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, and we will be announcing our decision on taking that forward soon.

    Amusement Arcade Machines
    Lord Fearn
    asked Her Majesty's Government:

    Why two types of amusement arcade machines, namely cranes and redemption, are included in the Government's definition of machines as Category D. [HL1286]

    Baroness Blackstone
    Under current law, crane and redemption machines found in arcades are classed as gaming machines if they involve gambling. That will remain the case under our plans for the reform of the law on gambling, which we have set out in A Safe Bet fir Success. Under our plans, the only gaming machines which will be allowed to be made available for play by children will be those classified as Category D.

    Saville Inquiry
    Lord Laird
    asked Her Majesty's Government:

    How many researchers and messengers are required by the legal teams which they are funding and who are attending the Bloody Sunday Inquiry; what arc their qualifications; and how much have they cost to date. [HL953]

    The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn)
    The Government (either through the inquiry or relevant government departments) provide funds only to counsel and to the firms of solicitors who represent interested parties or limited representation to quasi-interested parties; for example, those representing media witnesses. The hourly rate allowed for fee earners (counsel, solicitors, assistant solicitors and paralegals) include clerical support overheads. It is from the fees payable to the legal teams (details of these payments in respect of the families and NICRA were included in answer to a Parliamentary Question from the honourable Member for East Londonderry on 13 January 2003 (Hansard, col. 434W) that they pay for any administrative support necessary. The inquiry does not have details of whom the legal teams employ or their qualifications or remuneration. It is also for the individual legal teams to determine who might need to attend in support on any particular day, but
    WA 182
    they are not in any event paid a separate attendance fee.

    The inquiry itself has an administrative team to provide support to the tribunal, counsel and solicitors, all of whom are civil servants or on short-term Civil Service contracts.

    Police Service of Northern Ireland: Physical Fitness Requirements
    Lord Rogan
    asked Her Majesty's Government:

    What were the original physical fitness requirements for all recruits to the Police Service of Northern Ireland; and [HL967]

    What are the current physical fitness requirements for all recruits to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. [HL968]

    Lord Williams of Mostyn
    All applicants in the first three Police Service of Northern Ireland recruitment competitions had to complete successfully the physical competence assessment as a requirement of the recruitment process.

    The Chief Constable has decided that applicants in the current competition should not be required to complete successfully the physical competence assessment as a prerequisite to appointment. The point of assessment has instead been moved to the end of the student officer training course. However the requirement successfully to complete the assessment prior to attestation as a constable remains.

    Ards Hospital, Newtownards
    Lord Kilclooney
    asked Her Majesty's Government:

    What proposals there are to make full use of the buildings and sites at Ards Hospital, Newtownards. [HL977]

    Lord Williams of Mostyn
    The Ulster Community and Hospitals Trust is currently considering proposals and developing a business case to enhance and modernise services on the Ards Hospital campus. An overall rationalisation exercise is also being considered and this may lead to the sale of surplus assets in the trust. In the near future the trust intends to commence a public consultation process on the future provision of services, both in Newtownards and Bangor.

    Loughries and Whiterock, Killinchy: Sewage Disposal
    Lord Kilclooney
    asked Her Majesty's Government:

    How many additional homes can have their foul sewage connected to Loughries sewage works before it has reached full capacity; and [HL978]

    What is the present system for the treatment of foul sewage from homes at Whiterock, Killinchy;

    WA 183
    and how many additional homes can be connected to this system before it reaches full capacity. [HL981]

    Lord Williams of Mostyn
    The matters raised are for the Water Service (Northern Ireland). I have asked the chief executive, Robert C Martin, to write to the noble Lord. Copies of the letters will be placed in the Library.

    Newtownards: Road Construction
    Lord Kilclooney
    asked Her Majesty's Government:

    (a) When they plan to construct the link road between Portaferry Road and Comber Road in Newtownards; and

    (b) what progress has been made to determine the planning application for the Castlebawn development in Newtownards. [HL979]

    Lord Williams of Mostyn
    The subject matters raised are the responsibility of the Roads Service (Northern Ireland). I have asked the chief executive, Dr D M McKibbin, to write to the noble Lord. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

    Parliamentary Network: e-mails
    Lord Greaves
    asked the Chairman of Committees:

    Whether the filtering of e-mails by the Parliamentary Communications Directorate includes censorship of e-mails to and from Members of the House of Lords in line with that applied to Members of the House of Commons; if so, what guidance has been published as to what may and may not be written; what is the definition of "profanities of a sexual or offensive nature"; and
    who is responsible for setting the rules. [HL1309]

    The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara)
    In response to concerns from users of the Parliamentary Network about the amount of unwanted and, in some cases, obscene e-mail being received, and with the agreement of the Information Committees of both Houses, the Parliamentary Communications Directorate (PCD) introduced a new service on 13 January to block incoming e-mails from non-parliamentary addresses which contain inappropriate or offensive text. PCD recognises that, on occasion, correspondents may legitimately use strong language, and incoming e-mails that contain only a few mild expletives will be unaffected. Only those e-mails that contain a high proportion of the most offensive obscenities are blocked automatically. Futhermore, in order to prevent genuine e-mails from being lost, the sender of any e-mail that is blocked will be notified and invited to contact the intended recipient to arrange for the e-mail to be released.

    The service does not affect e-mails sent from addresses within the Parliamentary Network either to external or other internal addresses or e-mails sent by remote users of the Network via Citrix. The
    WA 184
    arrangements for incoming e-mails apply equally to Members and staff of both Houses.

    Ayrshire and Arran: STIs
    Baroness Masham of Ilton
    asked Her Majesty's Government:

    How many cases of (a) syphilis, (b) gonorrhoea and (c) chlamydia were recorded in Ayrshire and Arran in the last year for which figures are available; and what are these figures expressed as a percentage increase or decrease in the previous year. [HL1077]

    Lord Evans of Temple Guiting
    The provision of statistical information on sexually transmitted infections (STIs) has been a devolved matter since July 1999. However, the incidence of STIs in Ayrshire and Arran from 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000 is as follows:

    Syphilis

    3

    Gonorrhoea

    17

    Chlamydia

    158

    (These figures exclude epidemiological treatment for suspected cases of the above conditions.)

    More recent statistics are a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

    Trade in Services
    Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
    asked Her Majesty's Government:

    What was the response of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to the recent Department of Trade and Industry consultation, Liberalising Trade in Services; and what representations the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has received on the matter. [HL1138]

    Lord Evans of Temple Guitting
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was involved in the drafting of the consultation document Liberalising Trade in Services and it will be fully involved in formulating the Government's response in areas of relevant policy interest.

    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has received a number of representations from local authorities on this matter. The points raised will be fully considered in preparing the Government's response to the consultation.

    Immigration Removal Centres: Visiting Hours
    Lord Avebury
    asked Her Majesty's Government:

    What are the visiting hours at each of the detention centres at which asylum applicants are detained. [HL1188]
    WA 185
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin)
    The visiting hours at each of the immigration removal centres are as follows:

    Centre

    Visiting hours

    Campsfield

    Between 2 pm-5 pm and 6 pm-9 pm daily for social visits. The break is to accommodate the detainees' evening meal. Between 9 am-noon, 1.30 pm-5 pm and 6.30 pm-9 pm daily for legal visits.

    Dover

    Between 2 pm and 4.15 pm daily for legal and social visits.

    Between 9 am and 11.15am, Monday to Friday for legal visits.

    Dungavel

    Between 1.30 pm and 8.30 pm daily for social visits.

    Between 9 am-noon and 1.30 pm-9 pm for legal visits.

    Lind holme

    Between 1.45 pm and 4 pm daily

    Harmondsworth

    Between 2 pm and 9 pm daily

    Haslar

    Between 1.30 pm and 4 pm daily, except on Wednesday.

    Oakington

    Between 2 pm–5 pm and 7 pm–9 pm daily for social visits.

    Legal representatives are on site. Outside legal representatives may visit their clients between 9.30 am to 9.30 pm daily.

    Tinsley House

    Between 9 am and 9 pm daily for legal visits.

    Between 2 pm and 9 pm daily for social visits.

    Where a detainee is due to be removed, or in other exceptional or urgent circumstances, efforts will be made to accommodate visits outside the normal visiting hours.

    Yarl's Wood Detention Centre
    Lord Avebury
    asked Her Majesty's Government:

    Who are the insurers of Yarl's Wood Detention Centre; what is the amount of the claim in respect of the fire which caused extensive damage on 14 February 2002; what negotiations have taken place regarding the claim; and what is now the position regarding insurance of each of the other establishments where asylum seekers are detained. [HL1261]

    Lord Filkin
    Insurance provisions in respect of the Yarl's Wood Detention Centre and any claims arising from it are the responsibility of Group Four Amey International Limited in accordance with the contract for the management and operation of the centre. The insurance provisions are in the joint names of the Home Office and the contractor. The total insurance claim is £97 million. Negotiations have been on-going with the contractor and other interested parties since the incident last February. The terms of insurance cover for other establishments where asylum seekers WA 186
    are detained are subject to negotiation as and when they become due for renewal.

    Review of Police Shootings 1998–2001
    Baroness Gould of Potternewton
    asked Her Majesty's Government:

    When they will publish the Police Complaints Authority's Review of Shootings by Police in England and Wales between 1998 and 2001. [HL 1454]

    The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)
    We are pleased to be able to place in the Library a copy of the Police Complaints Authority's (PCA)Review of Shootings by Police in England and Wales between 1998 and 2001.

    We commissioned this review under Section 79(1) of the Police Act 1996, which allows the Home Secretary to call for a report from the PCA on issues of concern. We announced the terms of reference to Parliament on 20 November 2001. They were:

    "The review will consider what lessons can be learnt from the investigations into police shootings which have resulted in death or injury since January 1998.

    In particular the review will look at:

    The planning, control and conduct of operations;

    The way in which the concerns of the bereaved families were addressed, and how they were kept informed of the progress of the investigation; and

    The training and skill needs of the police officers involved in such operations, particularly at command level."

    We are very grateful to the PCA, and in particular to Mr Alan Bailey, Dr David Best and the two deputy chairs for the hard work and expertise they have brought to this report.

    We welcome the report and its positive findings. It covers a very difficult and demanding area of police work, where great professionalism is needed. Rightly, it gives credit to police forces for the small number of shots discharged by police officers in armed responses and praises much policing practice. The overall picture is very positive and it gives clear guidance on how best to manage firearms operations to minimise threat to life.

    We commissioned the report in order to make sure that the lessons from each individual incident could be learned and shared by all forces. While there is always understandable public concern when someone who is shot turns out to be unarmed, we must recognise that armed police face enormously difficult decisions. Sometimes these decisions have tragic consequences, and it is nonetheless essential to ensure that operational procedures, training and support to officers minimises the number of avoidable deaths and injuries.

    Our police officers are not routinely armed. The use of firearms is a rare last resort, considered only where there is a serious risk to public or police safety. When it is necessary for police officers to deploy firearms, it

    WA 187
    is vital that they are properly equipped and expertly trained to respond effectively to the serious situations they have to face. Police use of firearms is subject to stringent guidelines from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), which govern training, control and the conduct of operations. This is reflected in their excellent record against international standards.

    The PCA report makes a number of recommendations to further improve the management of firearms incidents. Many of these are already under way and we have published an action plan today, which we will also place in the Library, which sets out how we will work with the police service and other
    WA 188
    agencies to build on existing good work and take forward the recommendations in the report. We are determined to build on the good practice already in place by working closely with the police and others, including mental health professionals.

    It is essential that our police have effective less lethal alternatives available to them. The search for suitable less lethal options is complex and requires in-depth consideration of a range of issues. After rigorous medical and operational trials, and at ACPO's request, we have agreed that pilots on taser use will go ahead. If any less lethal options are ultimately recommended to police these must provide real tactical solutions to disorder and violence.