Sitting of 12 June 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—
  TREASURY

    Economic Growth
    Angela Watkinson: What changes there have been to his projections for economic growth since (a) the 2002 Budget and (b) the 2002 pre-Budget Report. [118657]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): In the 2002 Budget, United Kingdom GDP growth was forecast to be 3 to 3½ per cent. in 2003 and 2½ to 3 per cent. in 2004. In the 2002 pre-Budget report, growth was forecast to be 2½ to 3 per cent. in 2003 and 3 to 3½ per cent. in 2004. In this year's Budget, our forecasts are growth of 2 to 2½ per cent. in 2003 and 3 to 3½ per cent. in 2004.
    Angela Watkinson: The Chancellor of the Exchequer downgraded his economic growth predictions in his statement last autumn and again in April. Even his new figures are out of step with those of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Why should we believe he has got it right now?
    Mr. Boateng: What we have got right in these uncertain times, when America, Germany and Japan have been in recession for the past two years, is sound economic fundamentals: low interest rates, low inflation and a record number of people in employment—all things that the Conservatives got terribly wrong.
    Roger Casale: May I tell my right hon. Friend on behalf of households and businesses in my constituency that the most remarkable thing about the 2002 forecast was that, despite global recession, we were able to predict and to deliver economic growth? Is it not the case that the business cycle in the UK previously worked in such a way that shocks from the outside world were amplified, often with disastrous consequences for investment, jobs and growth in the
    812
    UK? Now, those external shocks are mitigated, exactly because of the framework for macro-economic stability that we have put in place.
    Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend is right. We took the hard decisions in the early days to set the Bank of England free, opposed by Conservative Members, and to establish the new deal, opposed by Conservative Members. We took the decisions that were necessary in order to create the climate of stability that is the best news that business can have. That is why we are succeeding in creating jobs. Currently, we are doing better than the other G7 countries on employment and indeed doing increasingly well on investment and productivity.
    Mr. John Redwood: Given the importance of rising house prices to confidence, consumption and growth in the UK, what lower growth forecast will be needed given the Chancellor's decision to tax the housing market into submission and to try to stop house price rises? When will the capital gains tax and higher stamp duty come in?
    Mr. Boateng: There is no such intention. That is a bit rich coming from the right hon. Gentleman, who served in a Government under whom Britain suffered two of the deepest and longest recessions since the second world war, during which unemployment rose to 3 million, inflation rose to almost 10 per cent., interest rates hit 15 per cent. and negative equity hit an all-time high. We will take no lessons from Conservative Members on economic stewardship. Our record is one to be proud of. His was one to be ashamed of.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Has not the substantial level of investment by the British oil and gas industry made a major contribution to economic growth over many years? Is my right hon. Friend concerned about the low level of exploration that we have had for the past two years, which threatens that continued investment at that level? I welcome the announcement in the Budget that that matter was being looked at, but will he undertake to complete that review speedily so that some proposals can be brought forward for the pre-Budget report in the autumn?
    Mr. Boateng: I thank my hon. Friend for all the efforts that he puts in on behalf of the oil industry and of those in his constituency who benefit from it. It was as a result of representations such as his that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took the actions that he did in the last Budget to encourage and support new investment in the oil industry. Those steps are specifically designed to promote research and development, to promote the exercises in modernisation and exploration that are the best hope for his industry and offer the most to UK plc.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Why does the Chief Secretary think that the introduction of the euro has so much reduced economic growth in Germany, with inevitable knock-on effects in this country? Do Treasury Ministers agree that the unwise

    813
    monetary policies of the European Central Bank have increased the risk that the German recession will have an adverse effect on our economy?
    Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman parades the prejudices and misconceptions of his party in relation to the euro. His analysis of the German economy is a little simplistic. He will agree that we need to ensure that we implement the reforms in relation to the growth and stability pact and the European Central Bank outlined in the Chancellor's statement earlier this week. Allied with the reforms in our own economy, those can only be good news for our economy and that of Germany and the rest of the eurozone.

    Manufacturing
    Mr Tony Lloyd: If he will make a statement on the impact of his economic policies on manufacturing. [118658]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Manufacturing output is expected to grow by between ¼ and ¾ per cent. this year, and by between 2¼ and 2¾ per cent. in 2004. Of vital importance to manufacturing in every region of this country is our commitment to pursue policies for economic stability.
    Tony Lloyd: I thank my right hon. Friend, because under this Government manufacturing has been seen as a vital part of the whole economic balance. That is in contrast with previous Governments, who gave manufacturing such a hard time. Does he accept, however, that, with the recent recession in manufacturing, which has seen cuts in employment and production, we need to restate the importance of growth and the fact that a consistent manufacturing base is at the very centre? Does he agree that now that the economy is getting into balance, the preoccupation with the financial services sector—a constant feature of previous Governments—is not something that we should pursue?
    Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for the efforts that he puts in for manufacturing in his constituency and the wider north-west. He will have noticed that manufacturing output was rising last month, and that our policies are designed to give this country modern manufacturing strength. In contrast to the previous Government, who preferred services to manufacturing, we want that modern manufacturing strength, and that is why we are introducing the research and development tax credit, through which £200 million has already gone to small businesses; regional venture capital funds, which manufacturing in his region is benefiting from; and permanent capital allowances, which benefit manufacturing in particular. Most important of all, interest rates in this country, which averaged 10.5 per cent. under the Conservatives, have averaged 5 per cent. under this Labour Government, and that is why we have the economic stability on which we can build. No one is complacent, but we will build on this.
    Mr. Michael Howard: Does not the future of our manufacturing base depend crucially on trade? Will the Chancellor now answer one
    814
    of the many questions that he did not answer on Monday? Will he confirm that his figures for increased trade if we were to join the euro are based on studies of currency unions involving Angola and Mozambique; Burkina Faso and Chad; Vatican City and San Marino; and Tuvalu and Tonga?
    Mr. Brown: What the study says—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] What the study says, and I shall read it directly, is that those conducting it discount industrialising and non-industrialised countries and that they have looked at the experience of the euro over its first few years, and whether there has been an increase in trade in the euro area. The idea that, in a single currency area, with the exchange rate barriers removed and a far freer flow of trade, no benefits are produced is quite ridiculous. If the Opposition are going to peddle the idea that somehow, with sustainable convergence, there are no advantages in trade, that reveals exactly where the Shadow Chancellor wants to take his party today, and that is against the European Union altogether.
    Mr. Howard: No, no. That will not do, I am afraid. Let us look at the Treasury documents. Will the Chancellor confirm that paragraph 3.36 on page 35 of "EMU and business sectors" expresses concern that, far from trade increasing,
    "In the absence of an independent nominal exchange rate, and if wage growth exceeded that in other EU countries without an offsetting productivity gain, UK export levels could fall and firms would have to reduce output and employment"?
    Why did he not mention that on Monday? Do not manufacturing industry and others need to be given a balanced assessment of euro membership?
    Mr. Brown: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should turn to the conclusion on what EMU could mean for UK trade, where what he has been going on about for the past few days—comparisons with industrialising areas—is discounted, and it is stated very clearly that there have been gains in trading in the euro area identified by all the studies that have been carried out, which he cannot deny. Of course the issue is sustainable convergence, because we are not going to make the mistakes of the exchange rate mechanism era with which he is associated. [Interruption.] Oh, so we are to blame for the Conservatives' decision, and an apology from the shadow Chancellor is enough! It was this shadow Chancellor who said that we must punish the people who made mistakes.
    Mr. Howard: I have in fact apologised for the euro; will the Chancellor apologise for the fact that he was calling for early entry into the euro a year before we joined? Is it not true that even the Treasury's documents put what it describes as potential increases in trade—potential increases—that are critically dependent on sustained convergence in a range of between 5 and 50 per cent.? So why is the Chancellor quoting just the 50 per cent. figure? Why did he ignore the fact that the Treasury's own figure for the effect so far in the euro area, to which he has just referred, is much lower? Why did he also ignore the conclusion that the
    "potential benefit of fixed exchange rates to the traded goods sector may be less than is sometimes claimed",

    815
    and the further conclusion that there is some "evidence" for
    "the view that euro membership would not increase UK euro trade by much"?
    Is it not the case that the Government's presentation of information on the euro has been even dodgier than their presentation of intelligence on Iraq? Is it any wonder that nobody believes a word they say?
    Mr. Brown: The party that has a problem with credibility on matters European is the Conservative party. [Interruption.] Let us recall the following: interest rates at 15 per cent., 10 per cent. inflation, 1 million jobs lost in manufacturing, unemployment up by 1 million, negative equity—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chancellor has been asked a series of questions and he is entitled to be able to reply without shouting.
    Mr. Brown: If the shadow Chancellor, who is trying to distort the Treasury summaries, were to quote fairly from these studies, he would see that the Treasury discounted all that he said about non-industrialised countries on Monday in its assessment, and that our assessment is based on real happenings within the euro area, in which trade has increased. Of course we give a range of figures, because this issue depends on sustainable convergence. But it is absolutely the case that in a single currency area such as the United States, trade between the different parts of the area increases as a result of barriers being removed.
    The Conservatives want to rewrite every part of history in this matter, but the fact is that the only reason why the shadow Chancellor fails to give us a balanced assessment is that he has no interest in joining the euro. He is against it as a point of dogma, and he would be against it even if all the proof were before him that there are indeed matters in the national economic interest that commend it to us. The Conservative party had better start thinking again about these issues.
    Mr. Kevan Jones: One of the major problems facing manufacturing in the north-east is the high value of the pound against the euro. This is a particular problem in the north-east because 78 per cent. of the region's exports are to the eurozone. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one advantage of joining the eurozone would be to give a boost to manufacturing in regions such as the north-east?
    Mr. Brown: Our studies set out these issues in great detail, and the fact that there is open government in this regard is in complete contrast to what happened when we entered the exchange rate mechanism, when no assessment was published or, so far as I can see, even made. We have set out the advantages in trade, the advantages in exchange rate stability and the advantages in cutting the cost of currency transactions. But we also say very clearly that these advantages and this potential are dependent on there being sustainable convergence: in other words, that we are able to live comfortably with the euro area interest rate.
    816
    We have presented a balanced picture of the national economic interest in this matter, and I agree with my hon. Friend that we should look at all the issues, particularly as they affect individual regions such as the north-east, which he represents. But it is outrageous for the Conservative party to distort one piece of information and then to use it as a case not even for rejecting the euro, but for rejecting the European Union altogether.
    Matthew Taylor: Assuming that the Chancellor said enough on Monday to satisfy the Prime Minister on the euro, and that he therefore has no worries about the forthcoming Cabinet reshuffle, could he tell us whether he accepts the advice received in the study that he commissioned from Professor Simon Wren Lewis? Over the last few years, manufacturing has seen a slump in investment and jobs, associated with the high value of the pound, but the Government have refused to clarify what they believe the right equilibrium rate for the exchange rate would be. Professor Wren Lewis suggests €1.37 to the pound; does the Chancellor accept that recommendation?
    Mr. Brown: Professor Wren Lewis made that estimate on the basis of the position as he saw it a year ago when he carried out his study. It was based on his analysis of the trading relationships evident at the time. However, the present Government are not going to set an exchange rate target, which is the Liberal Democrat party policy, not ours. We believe in a stable and competitive exchange rate over the medium term, and that that exchange rate will reflect fundamentals.
    As to joining the euro, if a decision were taken before the point of transition, we would deal with it, but I caution the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) about his over-enthusiasm for ignoring all the national economic interest questions in this matter. It is one thing to believe in the principle of the euro, but quite another to demand that we join it at every point in time, no matter what the exchange rate, interest rates and the wider economic picture. The summary of our assessment shows that, if we had taken the hon. Gentleman's advice in 1999, there would have been a stop-go cycle, leading to exactly the same problems that the Conservatives gave us in the early 90s.

    World Debt
    Mr. Tom Clarke: What progress has been made in pursuit of Government strategy on relief of third world debt. [118659]
    Valerie Davey: If he will make a statement on the progress the G7 Finance Ministers are making in tackling world debt. [118669]
    Mrs. Betty Williams: What further measures he is taking with G7 Finance Ministers to tackle world poverty. [118672]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Following the Evian summit, finance Ministers will review debt relief to consider an extra £1 billion for the poorest countries. Europe will now produce proposals to match the welcome American contribution to the

    817
    global health fund, particularly to deal with HIV/AIDS. In addition, G8 finance Ministers have been asked to report by September on the UK's proposal for an international finance facility, which will raise up to £50 billion annually to fund the millennium development goals. On that, I am grateful to have had all-party support.
    Mr. Clarke: I congratulate the Chancellor on the tremendous energy and enthusiasm that he has shown on issues of international debt, backed by one of the strongest economies this country has ever known. Specifically on non-heavily indebted poor countries and middle-income countries, will the Chancellor tell us what progress we are making, particularly in the light of G8 involvement? Finally, on falling commodity prices, drought and other issues, is the Chancellor satisfied that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund operate with criteria that are appropriate to reaching the millennium goals that he mentioned?
    Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend has taken a longterm interest in these matters and has led the campaign for debt relief in his own area. On debt relief, $1 billion was pledged at the last G7 summit in Canada, and that money has now been put into the World Bank trust fund. After a submission by finance Ministers at the G8 Evian summit, it was recognised that more needed to be done for countries at the point of completion. Twenty-six countries are in the debt relief process; eight have completed, but they need additional money to deal with the changes that have taken place, particularly in commodity prices, since the debt relief package was agreed. We have been asked by the Heads of Government to examine how best to improve the system so that those countries can receive the benefit of debt relief, freeing up resources for education and health rather than having to spend them on repaying debt. I am confident that the £62 billion of debt relief that we are achieving now will be increased as a result of the proposals.
    My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need a new finance facility so that we can move forward with anti-poverty programmes to meet the millennium development goals. I believe that that issue unites the whole House and I hope that, together with other countries, we can make further progress over the next few months.
    Valerie Davey: I thank the Chancellor for the international leadership that he gives on this issue. What progress is being made, specifically, to encourage other countries to sign up to the Government's proposal for the international finance facility?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking an interest in the issue and leading on it in her constituency. I am pleased to say that the G8 communiqué from Evian mentioned the international finance facility. The Finance Ministers have been asked to produce a report on the issue. The timescale is short, because we have to do it by September. It is recognised that there is a shortfall in funding to meet the millennium development goals and to maximise the opportunity given by the Monterrey agreements, in which the US and Europe agreed to pay more money.
    818
    We can build on that with a finance facility that uses funds from the private sector. We are confident that our September report will be the next stage in persuading countries round the world that that is the way forward. We have also had support from African countries and many other countries that are not part of the G7.
    Mrs. Williams: In setting ourselves ambitious targets for achieving the millennium development goals, how confident is my right hon. Friend that all the industrialised countries will make available the resources necessary to meet the challenge? What encouragement can he give those organisations led by Christian Aid which are organising rallies at the end of this month and are campaigning for trade rules to be weighted in favour of poor people?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend has played a major part in the campaign on that issue in Wales, and I also applaud the work of Christian Aid, whose campaign week has just finished. During its last campaign, my mother sent me a postcard at the Treasury demanding that I took action and spent more money, so it was obviously a successful and broad-based campaign. The millennium development goals cannot be achieved without the additional finance, but I believe that we will win wider support for it. I applaud the Opposition Front Benchers, the Liberal Democrats and other parties, because it is important that we have all-party support as we take the initiative round the world.
    Mr. Michael Jack: The Chancellor will be aware of the role of private investment in stimulating economic activity in the indebted nations as a way of relieving their plight. To that end, will he consider developing a tax credit mechanism that would encourage private sector investment in the poorest countries, to help to offset the risks of investing in them but to encourage that beneficial activity?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who takes an interest in the matter as a former Treasury Minister. He may know that we have introduced a tax credit for pharmaceutical companies, which they can use in developing countries and set against tax in Britain. That started at the beginning of April and I hope it will yield results. I will also look at the proposals that the right hon. Gentleman has made for other private sector companies. If only 1 per cent. of private investment round the world is in Africa, the chance for that continent to move forward is limited. Therefore, we must stimulate far more private investment. The right hon. Gentleman will welcome the International Monetary Fund initiatives to set up centres to advise countries about obtaining such investment, and I was talking to a group of American business men yesterday about those issues. If the right hon. Gentleman sends me his specific proposals, I shall look at them.
    Mr. John Baron: Given that we hand over nearly £1 billion a year to the EU overseas aid package, and given that the majority of that money is spent on political purposes—as evidenced by the fact that Poland receives twice as much aid as Latin America and Asia combined—does the Chancellor agree that that money

    819
    could be so much better spent on tackling world poverty if it was redirected to where it was most desperately needed?
    Mr. Brown: That is a European issue on which we can agree. There is a need for major reform in the operation of the European aid budget and the European development fund. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to learn that the European development fund provided money when debt relief was provided, and that was a useful initiative on its part. As for the global health fund, the US Government have made a contribution of $3 billion and it is proposed that the European development fund make a similar contribution. I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely, because only 38 per cent. of money from the fund goes to the poorest countries and, therefore, to tackle poverty. That is not acceptable and that is why I hope he will support proposals that the Department for International Development and the Treasury have already put forward to reform that aid budget. I believe that we will win support from other countries in Europe which understand clearly that our responsibilities to the poorest countries of the world must mean that we get the best out of the European aid budget, so that it tackles poverty, illiteracy and disease.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the Chancellor agree that current events in Zimbabwe underline the fact that much third-world debt has been caused by the profligate attitudes and policies of dictators, which also deter people from investing in southern Africa? Does he have a mechanism for ensuring that future aid, including the aid that Zimbabwe will need when it is free again, will be directed with proper regard for ensuring that it does not fall into the wrong hands?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely right. As he knows, Zimbabwe is not a HIPC country and does not receive money from that initiative. The hon. Gentleman is involved in all the parliamentary get-togethers in the Commonwealth that look at these issues, and so will know that the next stage is the African initiative, the New Partnership for Africa's Development. That has got to be made to work, but the conditionality built into NEPAD is that the money will be provided only if we can be absolutely sure that there is transparency in the way that it is handed out; that anti-corruption mechanisms are put in place; that there is a welcoming environment for the investment that is needed for the future; and that policies for economic stability are being pursued. Equally, we have a duty towards all the countries in Africa that are making efforts to put those conditions in place to provide money to relieve illiteracy, disease and poverty. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and I can agree with each other on those matters, as well as on Zimbabwe.
    Ms Julia Drown: A number of hon. Members heard from Senegalese parliamentarians yesterday about their frustration at the debt process. They said that, if the previous HIPC process had worked, there should be no need to launch another decade of poverty relief. One of their main frustrations
    820
    was that the African voice was not heard clearly enough. Would my right hon. Friend support giving African countries an extra seat on the boards of the IMF and the World Bank, and reallocating shares of votes according to population rather than according to the wealth of individual countries?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who does a great deal of work on these matters. Her meetings with delegations from other countries are very important indeed. We have been trying to reform the operation of the IMF, whose committee I chair. More resources have been made available for the African countries. South Africa's Finance Minister, the chairman of the development committee, has been invited to sit on the IMF committee, thus securing greater representation of the African voice. In respect of the international finance facility, we have made a point of sending representatives to explain to Finance Ministers in countries around Africa what we are doing. I appreciate what my hon. Friend says about ensuring that the voice of Africa is heard properly. The whole point of the NEPAD initiative is to establish a partnership in which the voices of the developed and the developing countries can come together.

    Financial Flows (EU)
    Michael Fabricant: If the Treasury will conduct an analysis identifying the (a) direct and (b) indirect financial flows in and out of the United Kingdom arising from EU membership; and if he will make a statement. [118660]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The UK conducts the majority of its trade—50 per cent.—with the EU. It also receives 55 per cent. of its inward foreign direct investment from the EU, and invests 40 per cent. of its outward foreign direct investment there. In addition, 61 per cent. of the UK's inward mergers and acquisitions activity, and 54 per cent. of its outward mergers and acquisition activity, are also with the EU.
    Michael Fabricant: I am grateful for that answer, but it does not cover indirect fund flows from and into the UK. In a recent parliamentary answer, the Foreign Office confirmed that no such analysis, including of indirect fund flows, has been undertaken since around 1992. Will the Chancellor ensure that such an analysis is now made? Is he aware that a recent analysis by the US Treasury suggested that the net cost to the UK of EU membership was of the order of $40 billion a year—almost equivalent to a doubling of the state pension. Clearly, that finding cannot be true. No Opposition Member believes that there can be any question of withdrawal from the EU, but it is not about time that our own Treasury conducted an analysis of indirect and direct costs, so that we can know how much we benefit from the EU?
    Mr. Brown: I have looked at the American authorities' analysis and I shall do so in more detail now that the hon. Gentleman has drawn my attention to it again. He says that no analysis has been conducted since

    821
    1992. He might have been more successful in persuading the previous Government to conduct it between 1992 and 1997.
    The hon. Gentleman really cannot tell us that he does not want to take Britain out of the European Union. I shall read from his article in The Birmingham Post. He wrote:
    "I believe that 20 or 30 years from now, far from debating the euro, we might well be out of the European Union altogether and into something far more prosperous and constructive."
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: If my right hon. Friend performs that analysis, will he be sure to track how much inward investment we have received, especially in manufacturing, since we became been a member of the EU? Most of the figures I have seen show the beneficial effects of membership in terms of jobs, investment and productivity.
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend chairs the Select Committee on Education and Skills and throughout his parliamentary career has taken an interest in all matters industrial, so he knows that since 1972, when 40 per cent. of our trade was with the EU, the figure has risen to 55 per cent. It was on that basis that the figure of 3 million jobs was first used, if I remember aright, by the Confederation of British Industry about 10 years ago, and has been updated ever since. It would be difficult for any Member to deny that there has been increased trade within the EU as a result of what has happened over the past 30 years or that that is very important to the future of every region of our country. My hon. Friend is right to remind people that those who want to take us out of the European Union are making a terrible mistake.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Unlike the Chancellor, who was elected to the House on a pledge to leave the European Community, I have always been, and remain, an unwavering supporter of British membership, so I should welcome a study of the kind advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant). Such a study would show that, over recent years, it has been to the benefit of this country to be a member of the EC but that as the Chancellor has shown recently, it would have been to our disadvantage to have been in the euro. Will the Chancellor confirm that there can be benefits from being in Europe yet outside the euro?
    Mr. Brown: I have just said that we would have been wrong to take the advice of the Liberal party and to join the euro in 1999. When the Liberals look at our detailed studies, they will see that their 1999 proposal was wrong. Equally, however, we would be wrong to rule out membership of the euro entirely. The Conservative party is making a historic mistake. The Conservatives have turned their back on their previous position—to review membership during a Parliament and then to leave it for two Parliaments—and they are now against it altogether. I am afraid that they are in danger of moving from being not just against the euro but against Europe altogether, although I accept that the right hon. Gentleman is not.

    Tax. Credits
    Helen Jones: What estimate he has made of the impact of the new tax credits on low-income families in Warrington, North; and if he will make a statement. [118661]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): Six million families are expected to benefit from the new tax credits, including 250,000 low-income working families without children.
    Seven hundred and fifty thousand families in northwest England are expected to receive the child tax credit, and 210,000 families in the region are expected to receive the working tax credit, including some who are also expected to receive the child tax credit.
    Helen Jones: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that, despite some of the difficulties of implementation, the new system of tax credits will provide a major boost to the incomes of many families in constituencies such as mine? However, the problems that my office is picking up result mainly from people filling in the forms wrongly or from changes in circumstances that they have notified since completing the original form. Will my right hon. Friend look into the application process for tax credits and, if possible, simplify it, and will she also consider how we can deal more quickly with changes in circumstances, so that families are not left in the lurch?
    Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend is right about the benefits to families from the new tax credits; millions and millions of families have applied.
    On moving to the new system, we required information to establish the claim and looked for clear ways to show simple things on the application form—name, address, national insurance number, work details, pay and number of children and their age. It was important to get all those details into the system.
    Next year, the renewal of claims for those already in the system will be much simpler and the forms will be much shorter. Despite the fact that the new tax credit forms are half the size of those for the working families tax credit—its predecessor—and notwithstanding the extensive testing that we did on the original form, I agree that it would be wise to consider whether further improvements could be made.
    Mr. Mark Prisk: Many people in Warrington, North—indeed, in the whole north-west—would be interested in the Paymaster General's answer. On 28 April, she promised the House that
    "anyone who has made a complete application and has yet to receive money will do so by the end of this week".—[Official Report, 28 April 2003; Vol. 404, c. 54.]
    Obviously that would include people from Warrington, North. That week ended on 2 May, yet, one month later on 4 June, the Government's own figures showed that, in fact, 750,000 eligible claimants across the country had yet to be paid. Why did the Paymaster General break her promise? Given what this shambles has cost people

    823
    in bank charges and interest payments, will she now apologise to the many families affected and compensate all those who are out of pocket?
    Dawn Primarolo: I appreciate that figures are challenging for the hon. Gentleman, but, to return the statement that I made on 28 April and the number of claims that we had received by that date, I told the House that those claims would be either processed into payment or claimants would be contacted where issues were still outstanding. Every day, because of the popularity of this policy, thousands of forms arrive, and the position that I stated on 28 April remains the case. It is important to check applications with outstanding queries, because I am sure the House would not wish us to pay public money to those who may not be entitled to it, but every claim received by that date is in payment or the claimant has been contacted by the Revenue to ensure that the claim is correct.

    VAT (Tourism Services)
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: When he last met representatives of the tourism industry to discuss value added tax rates applicable to tourism services; and if he will make a statement. [118662]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): There have been no recent discussions on that specific subject, but whenever we receive representations on tax matters we consider them carefully.
    Mr. Llwyd: The Minister is right: the Government probably consider such representations carefully, but they do not do very much in this sector. May I remind the House that hotel accommodation in the United Kingdom is very expensive in comparison with other European countries? For example, France has a 5.5 per cent. VAT rate; Spain, 7 per cent.; and Ireland, 12.5 per cent. Would it not be a boost for the tourism industry, which is a very large employer in the UK, to look again at the VAT rate?
    John Healey: It might not offer the boost that the hon. Gentleman imagines, and let me explain why. We have the highest VAT registration threshold anywhere in the European Union, so half the hotels in this country do not fall within the system and therefore do not charge VAT. The type of measure that he proposes would cost the Exchequer about £650 million, most of which would benefit the major hotel chains and luxury city hotels. So the blunt measure that he proposes may not have the effect that he would wish.
    Paul Farrelly: My hon. Friend may not be aware that tourism is one sector that we are trying to develop in north Staffordshire, precisely because of the difficulties in our manufacturing industry and the urgent need for regeneration, so I welcome the Chancellor's Budget commitment to regionalism, but may I ask all my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench whether—as well as supporting our diversification efforts, including tourism—they would
    824
    be receptive to a bid from north Staffordshire for Government agency jobs that will relocate from London and the prosperous south-east in future?
    John Healey: I welcome the efforts that my hon. Friend and those with whom he is involved in north Staffordshire are making to promote tourism. I know how beautiful the area is, and there must be a lot of potential to develop. On the specific point that he makes, the movement of civil service jobs out into the regions of England is being considered at the moment, and we will report on any plan in due course.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Economic Secretary clarify the legal situation, bearing in mind our EU obligations? Do the Government, in this Parliament, have the right to abolish VAT on tourism services, for example, or to move the rate from the higher band to the lower band? What freedom of action is available to the Government?
    John Healey: VAT in this country is governed by European rules. We have long-standing formal agreements with other European states that we cannot introduce new zero rates or extend or introduce new ones, to which the hon. Gentleman refers. In relation to reduced rates and tourism, the Government considered the matter in 1998. No persuasive economic case existed for moving, as I have indicated, and there was not a strong fiscal case for doing so either. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that little has changed since then.

    Pensioner Incomes
    Bob Spink: What the average income of pensioners was in 2002–03. [118663]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): The latest information available is for 2000–01. In that year, pensioner couples had an average income of £301 per week, and single pensioners had an average income of £160 per week.
    Bob Spink: Does the Chief Secretary accept that the highway robbery of £5 billion a year from pension funds through advance corporation tax by the Chancellor and his partner in crime, the Prime Minister, is a major cause of the devastating failure of final salary pension schemes?
    Mr. Boateng: No, that analysis is as misleading as it is inaccurate. The truth is that ACT was part of a wider package that involved reductions in corporation tax—long overdue reforms addressing a distortion that was not promoting investment in the British economy, which ought to be widely welcomed on both sides of the House.
    David Cairns: When calculating pensioners' income, does my right hon. Friend set aside expenditure that pensioners incurred previously but no longer have to incur—in particular, expenditure on eye tests, bus travel and, for older pensioners, television licences? Is not the true income of pensioners even greater when that is taken into

    825
    consideration, showing that pensioners are much better off under this Government than they were under the Conservative Government?
    Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. He might have added to it the reduction in VAT on fuel, concessionary travel for pensioners and the introduction of a 10p starting rate of tax, all of which have benefited pensioners. All of those are things that we have done, and that Conservative Members failed consistently to do during the years in which they had stewardship of the economy.
    Mr. David Laws: On the issue of pensioner incomes, does the Chief Secretary recall reading recently about the agreement between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister a number of years ago to sign up to something called a fairness agenda? Under what part of the fairness agenda should the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who earns about £140,000 per year, pay the same council tax as many poor pensioners on far lower incomes?
    Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman's point fails to address the real benefits that have accrued to pensioners. The reality is that the fairness to pensioners comes from an average increase for the poorest third of pensioner households of £1,600 a year in real terms, amounting to more than £30 a week, from October 2003. That is the real fairness for pensioners. With the minimum income guarantee, and with 400,000 fewer pensioners living in relative low-income households than in 1996–97, pensioners are really benefiting from the measures taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
    Angela Eagle: Will my right hon. Friend accept congratulations from many pensioners who live in Wallasey and elsewhere on the magnificent record in ending pensioner poverty, with the introduction of the minimum income guarantee, and in dealing with the terrible legacy of pensioner poverty left by the previous Government? Will he also look forward to the introduction of the pension credit, which will build on that, in October?
    Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I want to pay tribute to the contribution that she made as a Minister in the Department of Social Security, as it then was, to alleviating pensioner poverty. The reality is that, as a result of the pension credit, we are currently spending £9.2 billion extra in real terms on pensioners, which will be £5.7 billion more in 2004–05 than if the basic state pension had been linked to earnings since 1998. Those are real benefits in tackling pensioner poverty.

    Private Finance Initiative
    Gregory Barker: What the current total is of PFI debt guaranteed by the Treasury; and what the mechanism is for reflecting this in the national accounts. [118664]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): PFI debt is not normally guaranteed by the Treasury. A letter of comfort has, however, been issued
    826
    in relation to the debt issued by London Underground. A guarantee is in place in relation to the bonds issued for the public-private partnership development of the channel tunnel rail ink. Contingent liabilities for both have been laid before the House.
    Gregory Barker: Many people will be surprised that the total PFI figure is not larger, but is that not because the Government exclude from their PFI calculations the debt of Network Rail and London Underground? Can the Chief Secretary tell the House what the total PFI figure would be if it included the debt of Network Rail, as the National Audit Office says it should?
    Mr. Boateng: I can tell the hon. Gentleman exactly: £28.9 billion. All our PFI deals are subject to audit by the NAO or the appropriate audit body. The rules for accounting for PFI are drawn up by the independent Accounting Standards Board, not by the Government. We have a record of transparency and accountability that far exceeds the record of the previous Administration.
    Mr. Howard Flight: Will the Chief Secretary confirm that total Government PFI liabilities have risen some 17 per cent. to £109 billion, and that those gross liabilities, payable over 25 years, are now equivalent to 12.5 per cent. of GDP or, if discounted at 5 per cent.—a high level in today's interest rate environment to 9 per cent. of GDP? On the figures that he has just given, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that if one adds to those the liabilities guaranteed by the Strategic Rail Authority, the figure is 15.5 per cent. of GDP, or 12 per cent. of GDP, which the Government have off balance sheet, resulting from PFI and PPP liabilities? [Interruption.] The Chancellor, who is chattering to himself, has not commented that no other EU country has off balance sheet PFI or PPP liabilities of that size. Do the Government propose to harmonise or reduce their PFI liabilities as part of their convergence agenda?
    Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman made rather a mess of that one. He makes precisely the opposite point from that made by his hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker). The figures are as I gave them to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle. The rules that we use to account for PFI are no different from the accounting treatment used by the previous Government. If anything, the accounting standards have become stricter since 1997 because of our adoption of FRS 5. The only figure that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) need bear in mind is the 20 per cent. cut in public services—which are currently being improved by PFI—that would be imposed were he ever to gain the stewardship of our economy.

    Biofuel Duty
    Paddy Tipping: If he will make a statement on the level of duty on biofuels. [118668]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): In his Budget statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced that, from 1 January 2005,

    827
    we would introduce a duty incentive for bioethanol, set at 20p per litre below the rate for sulphur-free petrol. Biodiesel already benefits from a duty incentive of 20p per litre below the rate for ultra-low sulphur diesel.
    Paddy Tipping: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's continuing interest in the matter. Has he had an opportunity to read the recently published Sheffield Hallam university report, which concludes that the rate of carbon dioxide reduction is greater than previously thought? Given the clear environmental gains and the new biofuels directive that is coming, will he and his colleagues re-examine the rate of duty in time for the next Budget?
    John Healey: I am indeed aware of a Sheffield Hallam university study. It was designed to give us better evidence to make such judgments in future. For the moment, we judge the duty rates that we have set to be appropriate to reflect both the potential environmental benefits of biofuels and what is affordable and good value for public money to achieve those environmental gains.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: Over the years, the Chancellor has consistently advocated in his Budgets the role of the Treasury in promoting good environmental practice and given us lectures on joined-up government. Is there not an inconsistency between the policy of rebates for biofuels that the Minister has just announced and the determination of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that the crops cannot be grown on land set aside and otherwise wasted?
    John Healey: Although we are conscious of the potential of the duty rate cuts for farming and non-food crops and support diversification across government in other ways, the incentives for biofuels are not targeted at supporting farmers or subsidising agricultural production. I offer the hon. Gentleman a word of caution: if we introduce these biofuel duty discounts too fast or they are too large, we will increase the incentive to import biofuels, decrease the prospects of our own UK-based production industry growing and increase the risk that farmers in countries other than our own will benefit.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Does my hon. Friend accept that, despite all he has said, changes are taking place with regard to the widening of the European Union and the common agricultural policy, and will he assure me that we will keep the policy in mind so that we can make it possible for people to continue to grow biofuels in a sensible way?
    John Healey: As with all taxation, we monitor the issue very carefully and we are prepared to review the appropriate rate, particularly if new evidence and analyses are presented to us.

    Tax Credits
    Andrew Selous: If he will make a statement on the administration of tax credits. [118670]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I can confirm that tax credits are now being paid to 3.8 million families, in addition to the 1.3 million families with children on income support and income-based jobseeker's allowance who are receiving the increased levels of support now through their benefits. The Inland Revenue is deciding more than 100,000 cases a week on average. All the claims that are yet to be decided are incomplete or require further checks to verify information, or involve applications that have arrived at the Department in the past few weeks.
    Andrew Selous: Will the Paymaster General ensure that those of my constituents who have incurred bank overdraft charges and mortgage interest penalties purely as a result of the non-arrival of tax credits on the dates when the Treasury was due to pay them are compensated? Given that she has made allegations that my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said on the Floor of the House that he would scrap tax credits, will she give me the Hansard reference? She will no doubt be aware that, although the Opposition have considerable criticisms of the complexity and implementation of tax credits, we have at no point said that we would scrap them.
    Dawn Primarolo: Clearly, it is difficult to comment on the specific cases that the hon. Gentleman raised with regard to compensation without all the details—something that we would not do on the Floor of the House. Each case will turn on its own facts, but the most important thing is to ensure, as he is encouraging me to, that families get the service to which they are entitled. Where the Inland Revenue was unable to deliver the level of service that might have been expected, I will certainly consider what action, if any, may be appropriate. With regard to the second question, I regret that I did not hear—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady need answer only one question.
    Mrs. Joan Humble: My right hon. Friend will be aware that many of my constituents work on the tax credits helpline. Will she take this opportunity to thank them for the very hard work that they have put in to deliver this very important new tax credit? Will she also acknowledge that many of those staff throughout the country need continuing support? They need support from their management and appropriate training, and access to the computer systems to get the information that they need to answer the questions asked by the people who are ringing them up.
    Dawn Primarolo: I am more than happy to congratulate on the Floor of the House the staff of the Inland Revenue, who have worked so splendidly to ensure the delivery of the new tax credits, at times under extreme pressure, with which we are all familiar.

    829
    Families are desperate to get the money that they can see the Government are now prepared to pay to them through the new tax credits; many of them are getting it for the first time. My hon. Friend is right that the Department needs to ensure that it provides proper
    830
    training—which it has done—and updates training to give support to those who are in the front line, both in the contact centres and the Inland Revenue inquiry centres, and who see members of the public face to face. That work will continue.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: May I ask the present Leader of the House if he will please give us the business for next week? [Laughter.]
The Leader of the House of Commons (Dr. John Reid): Very good.
The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 16 JUNE—Remaining stages of the Licensing Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 17 JUNE—Opposition Day [9th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on "A fair deal on tuition fees", followed by a debate on "A fair deal for community pharmacies". Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.
WEDNESDAY 18 JUNE—Debate on "European Affairs" on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
THURSDAY 19 JUNE—Estimates [3rd Allotted Day]. Subject to the approval of the House, there will be a debate on the conduct of investigations into past cases of abuse in children's homes, followed by a debate on the future of waste management. Details will be given in the Official Report.
At 6 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
FRIDAY 20 JUNE—Private Members Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 23 JUNE—Opposition Day [10th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subject to be announced. Followed by proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No 2) Bill.
TUESDAY 24 JUNE—Remaining stages of the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill.
WEDNESDAY 25 JUNE—Opposition Day [11th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
THURSDAY 26 JUNE—Motion to approve the Eighth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life "Standards of Conduct in the House of Commons".
FRIDAY 27 JUNE—The House will not be sitting.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Leader of the House. Can he tell us yet whether he will be with us next Thursday? We should all like to know that, given his well-known enthusiasm for his present job, not least his chairmanship of the Modernisation Committee.
Is the Leader aware of early-day motions 1401,
[That this House deplores the fact that the Labour honourable Members for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, Falmouth and Cambourne, Erith and Thamesmead, West Bromwich West, West Ham, Rother Valley, Leeds West, Aberdeen South, Bootle, Kingswood, Leeds North West, Sheffield Attercliffe, Waveney, Birmingham Northfield, Cambridge, Blyth Valley, Wimbledon, Gower, Morley and Rothwell, Barnsley West and Penistone, Peterborough, Cynon Valley, Putney, Islington North, Tooting, Dagenham, Keighley, Coventry
832
South, Workington, Crosby, Linlithgow, Bristol West, Caerphilly, Llanelli, Lancaster and Wyre, Burton, Gloucester, Cunninghame South, Stroud, Monmouth, Liverpool Riverside, Sunderland North, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Birkenhead, Newport West, Stevenage, Aberavon, Ilford South, Bridgend, Midlothian, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, Newcastle Upon Tyne North, Jarrow, Wirral West, Knowsley North and Sefton East, Doncaster North, Blackpool North and Fleetwood, Barnsley Central, Ogmore, Tamworth, Stafford, Liverpool Walton, Rugby and Kenilworth, South Dorset, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, Edinburgh North and Leith, Brighton Pavilion, Manchester Central, Wrexham, Dundee East, Western Isles, Birmingham Perry Barr, Amber Valley, Blackpool South, Medway, Glasgow Shettleston, Calder Valley, Hayes and Harlington, Glasgow Maryhill, Kingston upon Hull North, and Blaydon voted against the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition on post office card accounts on 11th June, despite having supported the same motion when it was tabled by the honourable Member for Ochil as Early Day Motion 572; notes that had those honourable members voted for the motion then it would have been carried; calls on them to explain why they voted against a motion designed to protect the interests of vulnerable pensioners and benefit recipients and to save post offices; and condemns the Government for its dismissal of a motion which, as an Early Day Motion, secured the support of a clear majority of honourable Members of the House.]
and 1403?
Those early-day motions should be entitled "Dodgy, Devious Labour MPs", because they arise from the rather disgraceful episode in which a large number of Labour Members rushed to sign an early-day motion, then, when the Opposition tabled a motion with the same wording, voted against it. How are they going to explain that to their constituents, Mr. Speaker? Perhaps you should give them another opportunity next week to explain how they can first sign an early-day motion, then effectively vote against the same motion. Does the Leader of the House deprecate that behaviour, will he do anything to discourage it, and how will he explain it to the Members' constituents?
Can we have a debate next week on the details and the consequences of the Chancellor's statement on the euro? It contained some intriguing and tantalising references, including:
"interim reports on the step changes we need in the planning and supply of housing and on the market for long-term fixed-rate mortgages."
It would be helpful to our constituents to know what the Chancellor had in mind on the supply of housing.
Those few Labour Members left who are sponsored by trade unions must be interested in an urgent debate on the Chancellor's statement that
"almost all pay remits for public sector bodies will include a regional or local pay dimension."
I am sure that many Labour Members would want to participate in that debate to give the Chancellor a piece of their mind on the subject and act as legitimate spokesmen for their trade union sponsors.
We should also explore the Chancellor's statement that
"we will seek reform of the European Central Bank."

833
How will the Chancellor explain himself if he gets no such reform? He made the typically bumptious assertion that,
"we will continue to pursue successfully our objective of tax competition and reject tax harmonisation in Europe."—[Official Report, 9 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 414.]
We wish him well with that, but I admire his overconfidence. It is important to give maximum time in the House next week to explore further the references in the Chancellor's statement. I am sure That he has worried many people about their housing, mortgages, pay and many other matters that he tells us are essential to get us in the right shape, as he perceives it, for a referendum on the euro.
What is the status of the mental health Bill? It was published in draft more than a year ago and there were more than 2,000 responses to it. Most were from people who were anxious about its content. It has been suggested that there will be pre-legislative scrutiny of the measure. Will it be on the original Bill or the amended version after the earlier consultation? Can the Leader of the House guarantee adequate time not only to conduct the pre-legislative scrutiny, but between the end of that process and laying the Bill before the House?
The Leader of the House and his predecessor placed much stress on pre-legislative scrutiny and we want it to work properly and well. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can give us an absolute guarantee that, on a Bill as important and, so far, controversial as the mental health Bill, the process will be conducted properly, do justice to the measure and reassure those who take a close interest in it that Parliament will do a proper job on their behalf.
Dr. Reid: We have not yet made a decision on the mental health Bill. I hear what the right hon. Gentleman said and we shall, of course, attempt to give as much time as possible to scrutiny of what is an important issue. I shall come back to him as soon as possible on that point.
The right hon. Gentleman made speculative comments on the events of the day, about which most people have already been proved wrong. I shall not attempt to second-guess my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I merely say that, in my short time in the post, I have grown to love not only the job but Opposition Front-Bench Members. I look forward to being here for a long time, in the full knowledge that, as Professor Stephen Hawking reminds us, time is relative.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to the early-day motion on Post Office accounts. The Government have been trying to give not only time but maximum flexibility while modernising Post Office accounts and services to consumers. The right hon. Gentleman referred to another failed Conservative initiative to try to embarrass the Government. He gets upset when others will not join in. I shall not deprecate any hon. Friends who are consistently loyal to the Government on all issues.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the euro. That is important, as is Europe. Clear dividing lines are forming, and he can rest assured that we want to allow as much time as possible for people to discern the
834
difference between the approach to Europe of the Labour party and that of the Conservative party. I do not believe that any Labour Member could quite match some of the views that have been expressed in the Conservative party. As one hon. Member has said, there are millions of people in this country who are white, Anglo-Saxon and bigoted, and they need to be represented. [Interruption.] Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman recognises his own phrase on this matter. I do not think that the anti-foreign, anti-EU attitudes of people on the Labour Benches, however critical they might be, come anywhere near the xenophobia displayed on the Conservative Benches.
Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman—rather like another charge of the Light Brigade—apparently seeks yet another debate on European matters. We look forward to every such occasion, and there will be one next Wednesday. I hope that it will be only the first during which we can discuss European affairs, the euro and the contrast between the Government's rather pragmatic approach of putting Britain's economic interest at the centre of our considerations, and the dogmatic approach that says, "Never, whatever the advantages to Britain", or the Liberal Democrat position of saying, "Yes, tomorrow, whatever the disadvantages." I believe that the British people prefer a flexible, thought-through approach to a dogmatic approach, on either side.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Assuming that the right hon. Gentleman is not about to become Secretary of State for Health or Defence, or even Lord Chancellor, may I ask him to reflect for a few minutes on his role in the House and to make a statement on that matter as early as possible? Will he give urgent thought to the primary responsibility that his title and job description confer? It is not a responsibility to the Government, to the Cabinet or even—dare I say this today?—to the Prime Minister; it is to the House.
Will the Leader of the House look into two matters of current concern? First, is it not extraordinary that the Prime Minister can dramatically change the geography—the structural architecture, if you like—of Whitehall without any reference to the House at all? We find major Departments of state changing their responsibilities with major implications for the way in which we can hold such Departments to account. Would it not be right for the appropriate Select Committee to have before it any new Secretary of State as soon as they were appointed, so that it could investigate whether its remit and objectives had changed? Is it not critical for the work of the House, of which the right hon. Gentleman is the representative, that we should be able to hold to account the Departments of state?
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) yesterday, the Prime Minister said that "convention" and precedent dictated that he and Alastair Campbell could not come before a Committee of the House to explain what information had been given to the House on the war with Iraq. In the very same breath, however, the Prime Minister said that he had broken with precedent—quite creditably; I think we all welcome this fact—to come before the Liaison Committee. When is a

835
precedent not a precedent for this Government? Why are this modernising Government not prepared to dispose of a precedent when it is in the interest of good government and accountability in the House to do so? Before he perhaps moves to pastures new, will the Leader of the House give some thought to these matters and give us a statement?
Dr. Reid: Yes, indeed. I reflect on them constantly. The first time I came to the Dispatch Box in this capacity, I tried to give the House a rough rule of thumb as to what I thought was the role of the Leader of the House. It was partly to be the Government's man in the House, because I am a Cabinet Minister, but also to be the House's man in the Government and to try to protect the rights of Parliament as a whole, irrespective of party, in terms of its balance and its scrutiny of the Executive.
The hon. Gentleman raised two specific points. The first related to the role of the Prime Minister in the restructuring of government. Everyone in the House, whatever their views on any particular piece of restructuring, would accept that the Prime Minister, as leader of the Executive of the country, has a grave responsibility to ensure the efficient conduct of Government business and of the Executive. In doing that, he has a role from which he cannot withdraw.
Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman's second point was that the Prime Minister had been prepared, in a quite unprecedented fashion, to introduce efforts on the part of the leader of this country, the Prime Minister, to explain and to be accountable to the House. Specifically. I am thinking of issues such as the introduction of debates on Iraq and the war, and his attendance before the Liaison Committee. That, of course, is complemented by his efforts to make himself even more scrutinised and accountable outside the House through the on-the-record Lobby briefings that he has done, sometimes for an hour or two hours. The one thing that cannot be said of the Prime Minister is that he has been reluctant to hold himself up for scrutiny and accountability.
I do not have much to add on the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee, except that the Prime Minister has obviously already appeared before the Intelligence and Security Committee. I am sure that the more these matters are looked into, the more it will be seen that the allegation that there was some form of deceit involved here is completely and utterly untrue. I suppose that I had better answer the question, "When is a precedent not a precedent?" When it is done for the second time.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: As my right hon. Friend did not mention it in his statement of the business for the next two weeks, will he now give me a categorical assurance that the remaining stages of the Hunting Bill will be taken before the summer recess? Will he accept it from me that those of us who have gone into the Lobby to support the Government on contentious issues that were not in the Labour party election manifesto will not accept a Government failure to complete fulfilment of this manifesto commitment?
Dr. Reid: Obviously, I pay great attention to what my right hon. Friend says, as I did yesterday, incidentally,
836
when he raised the matter in another forum. Today, I have announced the detailed and specific business for the next two weeks. I cannot give a guarantee on detailed and specific business beyond that, but I can assure him that the points he has raised are not ones that I or others in the Government have missed.
Mr. Graham Brady: At the time of independence for Zimbabwe, a clear pledge was given in the constitution of that country that public service pensions would be honoured. Many Members have constituents who are Zimbabwe public service pensioners. They have been put in a position of extreme difficulty, because the Government of Zimbabwe have suspended payment of those pensions. Can we have an urgent debate on the plight of those pensioners and, in particular, a Government response as to why we are continuing to pay international development funds to Zimbabwe when that country is depriving our constituents of their income?
Dr. Reid: I am aware of the general problem that the hon. Gentleman raises, but I do not know of the specific measures that have been taken on it. This matter is important not only to the potential beneficiaries of such payments, but as a general principle. I shall certainly see that it is brought to the attention of the relevant Minister.
Kali Mountford: Could it be that the night mail will no longer bring
"Letters for the rich, letters for the poor,
The shop at the corner, the girl next door."?
Given that the Strategic Rail Authority has a specific duty to promote the carriage of freight by rail, can the House have an early opportunity to debate Royal Mail's decision to switch from rail to road?
Dr. Reid: I have some sympathy with the point that my hon. Friend makes, largely because my father was a sorter—a PHG, or postman higher grade, to be precise. I take the view that some of those things would have been better left unchanged. Nevertheless, the Government have made the commitment that we will allow the Post Office maximum freedom for its operational business. While I regret that, we have to stand by the decision.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), because the Rhodesian police pension of my constituent, Reg Vincent, is now worth nothing. May I ask the Leader of the House to consider the recent visit of the Catholic Bishop of Bulawayo. Pius Ncube? When he visited the United States, he met Mr. Secretary Colin Powell; when he came to this country the other day, he was first stood up for a meeting by Baroness Amos and then ended up meeting Liz Lloyd from the No. 10 policy unit. Surely that says a lot about the Government's attitude to Zimbabwe.
Dr. Reid: I do not think there is a great deal of difference between the hon. Gentleman's and my views on some of what is going on in Zimbabwe. As for the

837
specific case that the hon. Gentleman has raised, I understand that it was discussed at some length during Foreign Office questions 48 hours ago, and I do not intend to cut across the answers given then.
Judy Mallaber: Has my right hon. Friend been given notice of a statement to be made next week on a consultation document on domestic violence? When draft legislation is produced, will it be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee?
Dr. Reid: As the matter my hon. Friend has raised is still under discussion, I cannot specify a day next week. That in no way diminishes the importance of a subject which, as my hon. Friend knows, has been at the centre of a great deal of what the Government have done over the past few years. I am not in a position to reveal any detailed scrutiny plans that we have, but last year's modernisation plans committed us to increasing the number of Bills that are subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny. I think there were four during the last Session, and that number will be increased considerably in the next Session.
Mr. Roger Gale: The modernised sitting hours have effectively meant that on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays only London Members' constituents can arrive at the House in time for a tour before sittings begin. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will be concerned to know that tours to take place on Mondays, the only days on which the House does not sit in the morning, are now being booked six months ahead. Many Members appear to be taking advantage of their ability to book tours far in advance to secure bookings for constituents—particularly those from London, oddly enough. That means that many Members no longer have an opportunity to invite their constituents to visit the House.
First, will the Leader of the House investigate this? Secondly, will he consider applying the same sort of allocation scheme that is applied to tickets for Prime Minister's Question Time? Thirdly, will he come back to the House and allow us to revisit the whole issue?
Dr. Reid: I will act on the hon. Gentleman's first two requests. I am not aware of the details, but I will investigate the matter and, perhaps, write to the hon. Gentleman. As for his third, general point, I am well aware of the strong feelings that exist on all sides. I am also aware that when a change like this takes place it gives rise to a number of practical difficulties, in relation to Select Committees—some Committee Chairmen have brought those difficulties to my attention—and in relation to the visits mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. We should first consider whether the difficulties are insurmountable, or cannot be surmounted without considerable inconvenience. Then, after a reasonable amount of time—I do not think it can be done in the near future—we should establish whether, in view of the difficulties, the House has changed its mind.
Mr. Iain Luke: My right hon. Friend may be aware of early-day motions 1296,
838
[That this House is deeply concerned by recent reports of the arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi by the Burmese Military Junta in Rangoon; and calls on the Government to lead the international community in redoubling its efforts to stop the Burmese regime's human rights abuses, to do more to assist Burmese refugees and to seek the immediate release of Aung San Suu Kyi], 1311.
The motions, signed by 259 Members from all parts of the House and all parts of the United Kingdom, express concern about the taking into protective custody of Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma. I know that our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has invited the Burmese ambassador to the Foreign Office, and we in the all-party Burma group are trying to arrange a visit to the ambassador to express parliamentarians' concerns.
Given the atrocious record of the military junta in Burma, the extensive cultivation of drugs to raise finance and the continued presence of British companies such as BAT in Burma, will my right hon. Friend either arrange an emergency debate or arrange for the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on a matter that is of grave concern to many Members?
Dr. Reid: I agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments, which I will not repeat because he expressed them as eloquently as I could have done. We do condemn those grave offences. The Government are very sympathetic to early-day motion 1296; we fully support the call for the immediate release of Aung San Suu Kyi, and condemn the continuing human rights abuses in Burma. We seek every opportunity to draw attention to those abuses, not least during foreign affairs debates and Foreign Office questions, which took place yesterday. My hon. Friend has taken the opportunity to raise the issue again today, and I will encourage others to do so on every possible occasion.
Pete Wishart: May we have an early debate about the House's role in the ill-fated Scottish Parliament Holyrood building project? As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it was this House that signed the contract, it was this House that chose the wrong site, it was this House that commissioned the architect and chose the design, and it was this House that established an open-ended project with no cost-control management whatever. May we have a debate to find out why those decisions were made, and who is ultimately responsible for this shambles?
Dr. Reid: It had slipped my notice that it was all our fault. I suppose that as there are more English than Scottish Members present, we can blame them.
On any other occasion, the hon. Gentleman would be quite properly telling us to keep our nose out of the Scottish Parliament's affairs. The whole point of devolution is passing down the ability to make decisions, and I thought that the hon. Gentleman supported that. It seems that he supports it only when no one has to take any responsibility for their own actions. That is not in the Scottish national character: we face up to our own problems.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on housing? The euro support paper published on Monday proposes

839
profound changes in the housing market, involving house price stabilisation—which will be welcome in my constituency—and interest rate stabilisation, which would mean that those who currently pay enormous sums in interest would not experience the massive increases and the misery that they suffered under the last Government.
Dr. Reid: That is an important issue. It would probably be appropriate to raise many aspects of it during a forthcoming Westminster Hall debate on affordable housing.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: May I return the Leader of the House to a remark that he made about 10 days ago, to the effect that there was an element in the security services seeking to undermine the elected Government? Assuming that the remark was made in good faith, and assuming that there was evidence to support it, it is a very serious allegation. It amounts to saying that this elected Government were being suborned by unelected officials. That being so, may we have an early debate so that the right hon. Gentleman can tell the House what his evidence was and we can discuss what we should do about it?
Dr. Reid: I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not present for last week's business questions, when we dealt with this matter in some depth. I have nothing to add to what was said then, other than to correct, yet again, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's misapprehension, and the misrepresentation he is making, that I alleged that the security services were undermining the Government. What I alleged was that one or two individuals were undermining their own leadership and the intelligence and security services themselves. In other words, I was defending the security services against the calumnies that were being spread and the impugning of their own propriety with the suggestion that they were involved in acts of deception. I was on the side of the intelligence and security services; it was not the other way around.
Jane Griffiths: Can my right hon. Friend find time for an urgent debate on the activities of the militant tendency in the Church of England? He will know that it is currently campaigning to overturn the appointment, carried out duly and legitimately, of Canon Jeffrey John as the next Bishop of Reading.
Dr. Reid: I am afraid that my enforcement credentials do not extend to the theological sphere, but I note the point that my hon. Friend has made. I am informed that it is a serious point, not a trivial one. There are occasions on which matters relating to the Church of England can be raised here, and I hope that my hon. Friend will use those opportunities, but I know she will accept that it would not be propitious or proper for me to express a view on such matters.
Mr. Andrew Mackay: I wonder whether the Leader of the House has taken on board your comments yesterday, Mr. Speaker:
"I would prefer it if. on Opposition Supply days, we do not have Government statements."—[Official Report, 11 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 701.]
840
Does the Leader of the House agree that the statement yesterday on pension funds was very important but that it was not time-sensitive and that it was wrong to have it on an Opposition Supply day? Can we have an assurance that, next week and in future weeks, when there will be more Opposition Supply days, except in extreme and emergency circumstances, no statements will eat into our time?
Dr. Reid: In general, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I ask him to accept that we try to do that. Yesterday, there was an important statement on pensions. Its importance was exhibited by the fact that the time was elongated by the participation of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Let explain and give some background. We were under pressure to make a second statement yesterday. I will not go into the details, but we were also under pressure informally from some Conservative Members to make a statement on the deployment of British forces in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I insisted, and my colleagues agreed, that we did not have a second statement, precisely for the reason that it was an Opposition day.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept in good faith that we do not do that intentionally. We try to avoid it wherever possible. Like anyone else, we can get things wrong. We must try to balance the proper demands from the Opposition for scrutiny of important decisions such as that on the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the statement on which will be made today, and, at the same time, the Opposition's right to put forward their views in Opposition day debates.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: In view of the tragic events unfolding in the middle east, where it appears that Hamas is successfully derailing the peace process, will the Leader of the House consider arranging an urgent debate on the activities of Hamas in this country, the activities of leading members of Hamas in the Muslim Association of Britain and the activities of Azam Tamimi? Will my right hon. Friend consider that in the light of the possibility that such people may be attempting to recruit British citizens to become suicide bombers in Israel and in Palestine, and in view of the fact that those same people have called the suicide bombers martyrs?
Dr. Reid: First, my hon. Friend represents the views of the whole House when she refers to the tragic loss of life in the middle east over the past 24 hours. It is a vicious circle of tragedy. It would be a double tragedy if we allowed those who wish to destroy the present peace initiative through such acts of terrorism to have their way. That leads me to the second point, which is on the activities in this country of people who are allegedly connected with terrorist organisations or encouraging terrorist activity. I will not make any specific comment on any specific case, but the Home Secretary, politicians as a whole and our intelligence services are very well aware of the need for co-ordinated appraisal of and intelligence on such matters. All hon. Members appreciate the need for that.
Sir George Young: Further to the question from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) about the Hunting

841
Bill, over the next week or two, the Leader of House will be finalising the shape of next year's legislative programme. Against the background of the shambles this year, with unprecedented delays between the Committee stage and Report stage of Bills, with some Bills at short notice being zoned for carry-over, and with unprecedented programme motions curtailing discussion, will he urge restraint on his colleagues and ensure that next year's legislative programme is of a manageable size?
Dr. Reid: Working backwards, I hope that I can make the legislative programme of a manageable size. There is always a combination between the importance and priority of getting business through, giving it adequate scrutiny and managing it well. I hope that the level of difficulty we have had with a crowded programme has not been unprecedented. I dare say that the right hon. Gentleman can think of previous years under previous Governments when there were such difficulties; but we are bringing in new methods. Some of them are unprecedented, including carry-oven and pre-legislative scrutiny on such a scale. That brings difficulties. Part of my job is to make my life easier by making next year's programme manageable in size as well as content.
Jim Sheridan: With the possible exception of you, Mr. Speaker, and my right hon. Friend, very few with influence in the House or indeed the senior circles of Government can proudly say that they have been through the university of industrial life. May I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to use his good offices to remind those in positions of power that people born with a screwdriver in their hand are of equal value to the country's prosperity, and that their views should be accurately reflected in the House and in the senior positions of our political structures? After all, many in our society have claimed to be under-represented and have subsequently been recognised. There is a general perception among the general public that the academics have taken over the asylum.
Dr. Reid: I admire the gusto with which my hon. Friend defends the position, which he has done for many years. I thought at the beginning of his remarks that a timely reshuffle bid was being made but, as he knows, I agree with him. I attempt to maintain that tradition, although devious and mischievous forces are at work even now, trying to pretend than I am posher than the Queen, if what I read in the Sunday Times last week is to be believed. That came as a surprise to me. I understand, although I should not reveal it, that it came as something of a surprise to her Gracious Majesty, too. I agree entirely with the points that my hon. Friend has made.
Michael Fabricant: I advise the Leader of the House never to read the newspapers.
At a time when the national health service is building a new hospital in Lichfield that has fewer facilities than we currently enjoy, may I express my personal regret at the departure of the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) from his position as Secretary of State for Health? Hon. Members on both sides of the House will
842
recognise that he realised that structural change is needed in the NHS. May I ask that, at some time, a debate be held on foundation hospitals and their future?
Dr. Reid: On the last point, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be time for that and I look forward to it. I thank him for his comments. They are courteous and in character. I agree entirely. It was with deep regret that I found out that my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) decided to resign from Government. It is shocking in the short term, but I believe that in the long term it will be seen to be a correct judgment on his part. There are many reasons, had he given me them, that I would have argued ferociously against, but the choice of his family over his future career does not cause me to argue against him. I thank the hon. Gentleman.
Whatever difficulties remain, and there are great challenges in the health service, the fact that there are some 50,000 more nurses and 10,000 more doctors is testimony to the work that my right hon. Friend put into the health service. In the same gracious way as the hon. Gentleman thanked and paid tribute to my right hon. Friend, I wish the hon. Gentleman a happy birthday on behalf of the whole House.
Tony Lloyd: May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to the collapse of the Accident Group, a company that had its headquarters in my constituency and that employed and has now sacked 2,500 people nationwide? Inevitably, major issues arise from that. Employees were not paid. The claims of many people are still lodged with the company. There is uncertainty about where those claims stand. Many of the claimants are poor and seeking just compensation.
Will my right hon. Friend arrange for Ministers from the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Work and Pensions to seize themselves of the urgency of this matter, so that we can have an early statement on the investigation into the company. I allege no fraud because I know of no evidence, but can we have a guarantee that, if the company went out of business because of a lack of activity by the directors, they will be brought to account?
Dr. Reid: I think we were all shocked by the scale and abruptness of the events to which my hon. Friend refers. There are provisions to make certain payments to ex-employees when businesses fail, and my understanding is that officials from the DTI have been in contact with the administrators to find out about the events surrounding their appointment on 30 May. I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Rev. Martin Smyth: May I follow the reference by the shadow Leader of the House to a mental health Bill? The Leader of the House will be aware that for some time we have been seeking to amend the mental health regulations in Northern Ireland. Would it be possible for them to be subsumed into the main legislation? Will he discuss that with his

843
colleagues, because some of us are concerned about the conditions and care of those with learning difficulties, and that needs to be looked at?
Dr. Reid: Obviously the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to give a definite yes today, but I undertake to discuss the matter with my colleagues.
Margaret Moran: On Saturday, thousands of Luton Town football club supporters crowded into the ground to express their extreme anger, which I share, at the secrecy surrounding the sale of the club and its future. I congratulate the fans on the unprecedented move of setting up a supporters trust. Can we have an early debate on the appalling lack of accountability and powers to ensure that football clubs, which are community assets, are protected from, variously, egos, asset strippers and dodgy dealers?
Dr. Reid: I know how passionately my hon. Friend feels about this, and it has happened in a number of areas, including that of the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw). That is one of the reasons why the Government have set up Supporters Direct, which can help supporters in this situation. Perhaps the issue is an appropriate one for an Adjournment debate; I am sure that it would be of widespread interest. It only remains for me to wish Luton Town supporters and the club well for the future.
Mr. David Heath: Is it possible for the Leader of the House to arrange for a debate on the process of call-out for reserve forces? I have a constituent who is a member of the Royal Naval Reserve, and has indeed fought for his country on two occasions, who is deeply concerned about the process of call-out for the Iraq conflict. Under section 54 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996, the Secretary of State must satisfy himself that
"it appears to him that warlike operations are in preparation or progress".
My constituent believes that there should be a parliamentary debate on the issue, and I agree.
Dr. Reid: Continual discussions and debates on military call-up have been held on the Floor of the House, specifically in relation to Iraq, but there are further opportunities for them—indeed, the hon. Gentleman has such an opportunity almost immediately, because I noticed, marching in step towards us as I was speaking, almost in anticipation of his temerity in raising such a point, two colleagues from the Ministry of Defence. I am sure that if he raises the matter, they will deal with it in their usual delicate and emollient way.
Mr. Gwyn Prosser: This year sees the 15th anniversary of the P&O ferry strike in Dover, which resulted in 2,000 seafarers being sacked, simply for campaigning for safe work practices on the channel—something that would not happen under Labour's new reformed trade union law. Is my right hon. Friend aware that more than 100 Members have subscribed to my early-day motion fighting for justice for those sacked
844
workers, many of whom are still out of work and have been blackballed for all those years; and will he find time for a debate on this important subject?
Dr. Reid: I hear has my hon. Friend says, and I know that he has been a doughty fighter for working people on a whole range of issues. I cannot promise him a specific debate on the Floor of the House, but there is a whole range of opportunities to raise such important matters. The framework of legality within which trade unions now work has been considerably strengthened since this Government came to power. I am sure that my hon. Friend has the ingenuity to find ways of raising the matter on numerous occasions.
Mr. John Bercow: Further to the timely inquiries of my hon. Friends the Members for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) and for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), may I beseech the Leader of the House to find time next week for a debate on the desperate and deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe? Given the appalling effects of the land-grab policy, the grotesque denial of human rights, the severe financial losses that individual citizens have suffered and the fact, which is of great importance in this context, that we provide substantial international development assistance for worthy projects in Zimbabwe, does he agree that it is time that we had a debate to highlight the fact that President Mugabe—that murderous thug—is a pariah in the international community, and to underline the importance of his either mending his ways or walking the plank, in the interests of his own people?
Dr. Reid: Forceful and robust though the hon. Gentleman's words were, I think they will strike a chord with people throughout the House. The feelings and criticisms that he expressed are entirely legitimate. Of course I will draw them to the attention of colleagues in both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development. I cannot promise that there will be an immediate debate on that one subject, but there are regular opportunities to raise it on the Floor of the House. I know that, with his skills of advocacy, he will ensure that those ways are found.
Mr. Stephen McCabe: My right hon. Friend will be aware that this is carers week. Does he agree that this is a good opportunity for us to acknowledge our debt to millions of carers throughout the country and to reflect on the long hours that they devote, for little or no pay, and often in addition to a full-time job, to caring for others? Is this not a good time to reflect on the support that they need and the help that we can give them in the wonderful work that they do?
Dr. Reid: I endorse that without hesitation. There are 6.5 million such people throughout the country, who, unheralded and unsung, do an immense amount of good work. My hon. Friend mentioned carers week, which is a national annual event run by Carers UK and other groups—Contact a Family, Crossroads and the Princess Royal Trust for Carers. Its aim is to raise awareness of carers' contribution. It is doubtful whether we can ever reward them enough, but my hon. Friend will be aware that we have, for example, raised the carer premium in income-related benefits from just over £14 a week to

845
more than £25 from April 2003. That shows the importance that the Government attach to the work of carers.
Gregory Barker: Now that the dust has settled on the right hon. Gentleman's comments last week about rogue elements in the security forces, will he be very kind and give a clear answer to the question that I asked him last week, which is, simply: have the security services launched an internal leak inquiry, what are its terms of reference, who is undertaking it, when is it expected to report, does he expect disciplinary action to ensue, and, most importantly, will he make the conclusions available to the House? A clear answer, please.
Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman got upset, as did one of his favourite columnists last week, because he did not think that I gave him a clear answer. He may not know this from experience, but the intelligence services do not always come along to the House with a report on everything that they are doing. Secondly, if they did, they would do it through either the Foreign Secretary or the Home Secretary, or the Ministry of Defence, depending on which intelligence service we are dealing with. Thirdly, I answered the point about the allegations earlier on. My criticism was of those who were claiming that, on the basis of their sources, which they claim—
Mr. Forth: Who are they?
Dr. Reid: I do not know who they are. The whole problem is anonymous, uncorroborated reports impugning our security services. I said last week and I say again that, when we get uncorroborated, anonymous and misrepresentative stories impugning our intelligence services, I hope that, the hon. Gentleman will be on my side of the fence attacking them, rather than constantly trying to make party political mischief.
Mr. Tom Harris: Further to the point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford), I respect and understand the answer that my right hon. Friend gave: that Royal Mail's decision was of a commercial nature and that the Government cannot and should not get involved in it. However, Royal Mail has indicated that it may return to using rail freight at some point in the future. Unfortunately, EWS, the rail freight company responsible for delivering this service, has surrendered the train path needed to provide it. Can my right hon. Friend commit himself to having a debate in the House which the Secretary of State for Transport could attend, explaining what pressure he—or she—could exert on Network Rail to ensure that these train paths are reinstated if and when necessary?
Dr. Reid: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to raise this issue either in an Adjournment debate or during Transport questions, which I believe will be held next week. I cannot respond in detail, other than to say that, in terms of an objective and making it a reality, the Government have had some success in transferring freight from road to rail. Anything that tends to shift it
846
back would be deleterious not only for the Government but for the millions of motorists in this country who are trying to travel a little more freely on our roads.
Mr. Bill Wiggin: I hope that the Leader of the House will take this opportunity to set the record straight in respect of Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions of a couple of days ago. It was Professor Welshman Ncube, the secretary-general of the Movement for Democratic Change, who was discussed, not Bishop Pious Ncumbe, who is the Bishop of Bulawayo. I hope that the Leader of the House will therefore look much more seriously into the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), and hold the debate on Zimbabwe that is so badly needed.
Dr. Reid: The answer to both points is yes. I will take this issue seriously, and I stand corrected if the hon. Gentleman feels that I have mistaken the subject under discussion; however, I think the general matter was fairly close to the point that was raised.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: Does my right hon. Friend share my horror at figures released by the International Labour Organisation—on this, the world day against child labour—suggesting that 1.2 million children are being trafficked into labour across the world: in mines, in conflict zones as soldiers, and, indeed, into the sex trade? Does he agree with me that the House should take the opportunity to have an early debate on this subject?
Dr. Reid: I do agree that the protection and enhancement of children's lives is of the highest priority; indeed, I find it hard to think of any other subject that should be a greater priority for us. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government are committed to helping to eliminate child labour, particularly in its worst forms, such as child slavery. The Department for International Development is supporting an entire range of programmes aimed at eliminating child labour in a number of countries. And international programmes are being assisted, such as UNICEF's work on the rehabilitation of child soldiers, and the ILO programme for the elimination of child labour. I thank my hon. Friend, on behalf of the whole House, for raising an issue that should not separate us in party terms.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: In view of the current concern about and interest in European affairs, and of the immense concern that is being expressed about European Community directive 2000/68/EC, will the Leader of the House give consideration to a debate on subsidiarity? The directive states that by the end of 2003, every horse must have a passport. Although no photograph is required on these passports, the markings must be identified in English and in French, and the form must be completed in either red or black ink only.
The forms will cost between £20 and £30 per horse, and one can imagine the immense damage that that will do to riding schools in constituencies throughout the country. Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate,

847
so that we can bring greater public attention to this ridiculous measure, which is causing significant concern in the horsey community?
Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue—as the wider horsey community will undoubtedly do when they discover that he has done so. Not being a member of the horsey community, I am not familiar with the details, but I will try to acquaint myself with them. However, I take the point that we must always be careful that there is no unwarranted interference and unwelcome legislative intervention at a European level. That is why I was surprised to read certain comments on the Conservative website, which I bring to the hon. Gentleman's attention. The Conservatives' simplified alternative convention and treaty is being prepared by Mr. Timothy Kirkhope, MEP. The website also says that
"Timothy has put together his amendments and drawn on his discussions with colleagues in the European Parliament"—
Conservative ones, that is. Under article 1-19 of that alternative treaty is included the astounding opening sentence:
"The European Parliament shall, jointly with the Council, enact legislation".
I did not know that this was the Conservative party's policy until I read that. [Interruption.] To judge by the look on the hon. Gentleman's face, I suspect that he did not, either. However, the website does make interesting reading.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Has my right hon. Friend read early-day motion 1160, on legal professional privilege? It states:
[That this House is concerned that Government Ministers invariably seek to withhold legal advice received within their Department or from Treasury Counsel under the blanket of the provisions for legal professional privilege, even in instances where the drafted legislation or regulations are designed to protect the public from unfair treatment; believes that the ending of the use of legal professional privilege over measures intended to protect the public interest would facilitate the fuller understanding of the implications of legislative and regulatory proposals so that more relevant amendments could be tabled; and further believes that such an approach would be in keeping with the general intentions of the Data Protection Act 1998, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the code of practice on access to Government information.]
Legal professional privilege is used by Government Departments to refuse to provide legal advice that they have received from Treasury counsel and others. That is done even when the legislation concerned involves
848
protection of the public. Would it not be in keeping with data protection and freedom of information legislation, and the code of practice on access to Government information, for this advice to be made much more readily available?
May we have a debate on this matter, which would enable me to discuss a case that I have been dealing with for some time? The Department of Trade and Industry persistently refuses to give information on the non-use of the trading schemes exclusion regulations in respect of Chem-Dry, which imposed barriers in respect the operation of its franchisees. It is clear that the DTI should have taken action and prosecuted, and it is very important to my constituents that they be aware of the legal advice provided.
Dr. Reid: As my hon. Friend has illustrated, this is a very complex issue. However, my understanding is that once the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is in force, although correspondence covered by legal professional privilege will continue to be exempt, decisions on its disclosure will be covered by the public interest test and be subject to the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner. So the issue is not as black and white as perhaps some commentators have led us to believe. I hear what my hon. Friend says, but I am afraid that I cannot comment on the specifics of this case. I know that he is a dogged and determined pursuer of his constituency interests, and that he will continue to raise this case on every possible occasion.
Mr. Roy Beggs: A multi-million pound construction and engineering project in my constituency has just been completed. The main contractor was a European firm that submitted the lowest tender. It has gone, but many small businesses and sub-contractors in my constituency that supplied services and carried out work for this company have not been paid in recent months. May we have a debate on this issue in the House, and seek legislative change to give protection to all sub-contractors? In particular, we should consider this issue in terms of our responsibility when public money is being spent.
Dr. Reid: Obviously, I am not familiar with the details of this case, but I am sure that it is an important one. I know that, like my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), the hon. Gentleman assiduously follows his constituents' interests—and, indeed, the wider interests of Northern Ireland. If he would like to write to me, I shall try to pass the information on to my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office, or to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Indeed, I shall do what I can in the coming days. In the meantime, I look forward to seeing everyone next week.

Democratic Republic of the Congo
1.30 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on a British contribution to a multinational force for the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I advise the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is attending a NATO Defence Ministers' meeting in Brussels, which is why he is unable to present the statement today.
The House will be aware of the serious situation in the Ituri province in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, particularly in and around the town of Bunia. There has been a resurgence of fighting, particularly between Hema and Lendu militia, and tens of thousands of people have fled from their homes. Some are in refugee camps around Bunia; others are scattered in the surrounding countryside. There is a risk that renewed violence and disease could lead to many deaths.
The United Kingdom is wholly committed to supporting the United Nations peacekeeping effort in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In Ituri province and elsewhere, good work has been done, but UN troops are faced with a new situation, which they do not have sufficient numbers to deal with. Recognising that, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan requested the creation of a multinational force to stabilise Bunia. UN Security Council resolution 1484, passed on 30 May, provides the mandate for the force, and on 5 June, the EU decided that the operation would be under European security and defence policy auspices.
As framework nation, France will provide the military commander and the majority of the force. Several EU member states and some non-EU nations are likely to contribute. We expect the Council of Ministers to agree today formally to launch the operation—the first EU-led operation outside Europe.
I can now tell the House how the UK intends to contribute to this EU-led force. We have offered to provide an engineer detachment and Hercules transport aircraft to help deploy the multinational force. The exact numbers of personnel needed will not be known until we have completed further detailed analysis of the engineering tasks required in Bunia. Bearing in mind the importance of co-ordination between the United Nations and the multinational force, and to assist with planning, we will also provide five staff officers to the force headquarters and a liaison officer to work with the UN.
I know that many right hon. and hon. Members are concerned that our armed forces have too many commitments. I understand that concern, but I can assure the House that this is a modest, realistic and sustainable deployment. In making the commitment, we are clear that there can be no military solution to the problems in the region. The multinational force is an interim measure, deployed to help the UN with a limited and short-term mandate and will begin to withdraw when UN reinforcements arrive later in the summer.
We hope that this force will help stabilise Ituri province and that it will assist the wider discussions in Kinshasa on the establishment of a transitional national Government. We call on all parties in Ituri, Kinshasa and the
850
surrounding region to play a full part in achieving peace and stability in the region. I am pleased that the EU has responded quickly and decisively to the situation in Bunia. It is exactly how we envisage the EU's security and defence policy developing—as the practical expression of a common foreign and security policy.
The UK takes its commitments to global security seriously. The operation fits into our own and wider EU objectives in the region, including support to the peace process in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I trust that the House will recognise that, through that contribution, we are taking practical steps to help resolve a difficult situation. I commend the statement to the House.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to the Minister for his statement. Before responding, I would like to correct the record. I do not believe that the Leader of the House deliberately misled the House, but we never insisted on having an oral statement "tomorrow." We were always perfectly happy about an oral statement today, but we believe that it is important that we should always have an oral statement, as a matter of principle, in respect of any new deployment into any new theatre. I am sure that the whole House would agree.
Nobody could possibly object to the proposition that the Congo crisis is crying out for international intervention. That country that has been racked by tribal civil war and has been plundered for decades by neighbouring states for oil, gold and diamonds. We fully support intervention by the international community to stem the latest bloodshed. However, the conflict has claimed some 4 million lives since 1998 and the Minister has not explained what such a small intervention can truly achieve. What he did say is, "It is exactly how we envisage the EU's security and defence policy developing—as the practical expression of a common foreign and security policy." The deployment raises many questions about the assurances given to the House and to President Bush that NATO would always have first refusal over EU operations and would always be involved in the planning. Is this statement on the serious crisis in the Congo really the occasion to experiment with new and untried EU military structures and for the Minister to make political points about their highly controversial European security and defence policy? The crisis demands our best effort, because this small but complex operation may put at risk our servicemen's lives.
Given the Government's commitment to NATO and NATO's proven and tested abilities to plan and command operations of this sort, the Minister should explain why we did not press for NATO to lead the operation, just as NATO is leading peacekeeping in Kabul without any direct US military involvement.
A European security and defence policy operation is clearly more risky. The German former chief of NATO's military committee, General Klaus Naumann, has warned of the "casual approach of politicians", and that "soldiers risk dying" because of politicians' "ambitious decisions". Furthermore, a French military briefing paper obtained by The Guardian described the operation as
"politically and militarily high risk; very sensitive and complex",

851
but that has been ridiculed by an EU military planner who said:
"This is the most cynical military briefing I've read in my entire life. Everybody is just laughing at it."
Have the UK Government seen that paper, and what was their reaction?
In order to allay any concern, can the Minister set out the military mission for the operation? He seemed keener to talk about the ESDP, but said nothing about the military mission. What are the benchmarks for its success, and what are the key risks? Realistically, what impact can 1,400 soldiers have in a country the size of Europe? How can a mere 1,400 soldiers avoid being overwhelmed by the scale of the humanitarian crisis in Bunia? What humanitarian aid will be available to support military operations there? What are the provisions for reinforcement, if necessary, and what are the means of extracting the force in an emergency?
The French briefing paper is reported to confirm that the deployment will have negligible impact on the tribal conflict. Francois Grignon of the International Crisis Group has written:
"This intervention is, on the face of it, totally insufficient to meet the needs of Ituri's pacification."
Let nobody doubt Britain's concern for the people of the Congo and of the whole African continent, but I am sure that the Minister would agree that there is no point in hand-wringing gestures for ulterior political motives. Our armed forces have proved themselves in Africa time and again. There is no doubt that they will do an excellent job, whatever they are asked to do, and we certainly wish them well.
Mr. Ingram: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's initial comments about full support for the intervention, but the thrust of his comments was that it would have been better done under NATO than under ESDP. Of course, NATO could have become involved if it had wished, but it did not. The ESDP process was then triggered. That was always envisaged when the process was set up.
I take exception to the hon. Gentleman's comment that the very nature of the deployment would place additional risk on the lives of our personnel. There is not one shred of evidence for that and when the hon. Gentleman raises such scares, he has to recognise the possible impact on morale. It was a wholly unacceptable approach to adopt.
The potential humanitarian crisis and other threats that may exist—such as people pouring in to safer areas or outbreaks of major diseases and pestilence—have all formed part of the force planning that has been undertaken, in recognition of the fact that it will be a small deployment. The hon. Gentleman asked under what mandate we act and what approach we will take. I suggest that he reads the UN Security Council resolution, which states that the Security Council:
"Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations … Authorizes the deployment until 1 September 2003 of an Interim Emergency Multinational Force in Bunia, in close co-ordination with MONUC,"—
which is still there and has been strengthened—
"in particular its contingent currently deployed in the town, to contribute to the stabilization of the security conditions and the improvement of the humanitarian situation in Bunia, to ensure the protection of the airport, the internally displaced persons in the
852
camps in Bunia and, if the situation requires it, to contribute to the safety of the civilian population, United Nations personnel and the humanitarian presence in the town … Stresses that this Interim Emergency Multinational Force is to be deployed on a strictly temporary basis to allow the Secretary-General to reinforce MONUC's presence in Bunia and in this regard, authorises the Secretary-General to deploy, within the overall authorised MONUC ceiling, a reinforced United Nations presence to Bunia, and requests him to do so by mid-August 2003."
That is a very specific mandate for a specific time, laid down by the United Nations while it builds up its force to deal with all the other attendant problems. Our force is not going out there to deal with those problems. We are putting in place specific enabling capabilities to enable the force to be deployed.
I hope that I have answered the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman. He is clearly concerned because the ESDP is involved, but that does not diminish the quality of the personnel who will be put in place. They will do a thorough and professional job, as they always do, no matter which flag they are doing it under.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Albeit that the House is relatively empty, let us understand that this is a momentous statement. With trepidation and foreboding, I support the Government's actions. I was chosen by Mr. Speaker Weatherill as the leader of the Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to Zaire in November 1990 and I just hope that Ministers understand the bitter tribal divisions in that place. We will be going into a morass, and it is not a place for a token force to achieve anything. The Minister says September and refers to strict dates. I hope he is right, but let us not mistake the momentous nature of what we are doing.
Mr. Ingram: Not for one moment do the Government, or any other country involved, underestimate the scale of the problem, which is long-running and will not be easily resolved. That is why I said in my opening statement that a military solution is unlikely. We have to move forward on a range of fronts. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. In one sense, the decision is indeed momentous, because it shows a clear commitment in Europe to take on difficult tasks that we have been requested by the UN to address. We understand wholly the deep, bitter tribal divisions that exist, and that could fragment even further. The scene is constantly shifting, with supporters moving from faction to faction. The UN has to understand that, and it does. It has to tackle it, and it is trying. We will give it support in what it is trying to achieve.
Mr. Paul Keetch: I thank the Minster for advance warning of his announcement. We do not believe that today is the day to rehearse arguments about European integration. We welcome the positive response by the Government to the request for troops to be sent to the Congo, under EU authority. I am sure that it is with some discomfort that our armed forces face yet another commitment in the present circumstances, but the Minister is right to point out that the strategic defence review acknowledged that as a permanent member of the UN Security Council Britain has a responsibility to contribute to international peacekeeping missions.

853
The shadow of Rwanda will fall over this mission. There is a need for many more troops than those on their way to the Congo. According to, a leaked French military document—as the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said—the force will not be able to disarm the militia or stop the war, merely protect civilians. While it is right that we should not know the exact rules of engagement, can the Minister assure the House that they are sufficiently robust to protect our troops in the field, and the civilians in their care?
What efforts are the Government making to convince other nations to contribute, both from within the EU and outside it? Will there be a reserve call-out associated with this deployment? Can we learn the lessons from Sierra Leone? Can we ensure that all personnel on their way to the region receive appropriate protection against diseases? Will the malaria prevention issued be the same as in Sierra Leone? As with Sierra Leone, we need to know what the exit strategy is—as the Father of the House said. The French have said they will commit only to 1 September, after which they will hand over command to the Bangladeshis. Do we leave with the French, or wait for the Bangladeshis?
Mr. Ingram: We could leave in advance of that. When the recce has returned, it will define exactly what is required. We do not yet know the extent of the engineering requirements in the field, and other Departments and non-governmental organisations are there and may be able to undertake some of the tasks. The scale and scope of the operation has not been fully defined, other than that it will take place within a tight parameter. We could leave earlier, although the likelihood is that we will withdraw as the UN reinforcements enter the region.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's acceptance of what we are doing. I was thrown a wee bit, because we usually get some confusion about whether to support a deployment from the Liberal Democrats—
Mr. Keetch: Not so.
Mr. Ingram: Well, I think of a recent conflict on which they tried to face both ways. They are now picking and choosing which parts of the world they wish the UK to become involved in, and yet at the same time they say that we have obligations under UN Security Council commitments to seek to do what we can to deal with those issues.
The hon. Gentleman also said that there was a need for more troops. I do not know whether he is asking for more UK troops to become involved—
Mr. Keetch: No.
Mr. Ingram: Well, at least that is clear. I can give him assurances that, as I said in my statement—he had an advance copy of it—other EU and non-EU nations are being spoken to by the French, as the framework nation, to try to assemble a package.
On the rules of engagement, the deployment of our personnel and of the multinational force will take place under chapter VII of the UN charter. The hon.
854
Gentleman should understand precisely what that means. We do not discuss details of the rules of engagement, but our troops will be armed and will use their weapons for their own defence, if required.
The Gentleman asked about the reserve call-out, and I can tell him that we have no plans in that regard. This important deployment will be small. The precise numbers have not yet been determined, so I see no need for a reserve call-out. However, the purpose of having reserves available is that they can be called out in certain circumstances, if there is a need to supplement the work of the regular forces in meeting the demands placed on us under the UN charter. No such call-out is planned on this occasion.
Tony Worthington: I welcome today's statement, which has been inevitable for many years. Like everyone else, I welcome it with apprehension because of the scale of the problem that exists.
I have two points to make. First, there must be a fierce intensification of the diplomatic effort to prevent neighbouring states from interfering in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and to get their forces out of that country. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the Government are playing their part in that? Secondly, I suggest that my right hon. Friend read "A Nation Betrayed" by Linda Melvern, which deals with Rwanda. We must not betray the Congo in the same way that Rwanda was betrayed. Every member of the UN Security Council must play its part, which means an application of forces way beyond what is being talked about today.
Mr. Ingram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been very active in highlighting this issue. He takes a close interest in this and other parts of the world, and I know that he has been raising this issue over a considerable period of time. He asked for more military intervention and for more intensive diplomatic efforts. I assure him that the diplomatic effort is being intensified as a result of the assessment that a military solution is not the way forward. However, we must always take matters on a case-by-case basis. The UN approach to the issue has been carefully constructed, and we must recognise the primacy of the UN in the matter and accept its assessment. The UN has asked for support, and adopting the EU-led approach of the ESDP will give confidence in the interim period, ahead of what we hope will be a much more substantial presence on the ground through MONUC, the UN force in the area.
I do not know how many troops my hon. Friend thinks should be involved, given the scale of the problem, but it would be a failure of our thought processes if we were to adopt a military approach to the matter. As he said, we must adopt a diplomatic approach. All our efforts, through the UN and through NGOs, must be aimed at finding the best solution. The problem is complex and has existed for some time. We are all aware of the terrible experience in Rwanda in 1994, and I do not think I need to read the book "A Nation Betrayed". All of us remember in some detail what went on at that time. Lessons have been learned, and I hope that we can find a solution on this occasion.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Although I recognise that the deployment is a small one,

855
does the Minister understand that many of us oppose it? Britain has no historical responsibility for the Congo, and our economic and political interests there are very small. As the Father of the House said, the risks involved in the deployment are very great. In those circumstances, does the Minister accept that the risks to British servicemen are such that we should not commit them in such a venture?
Mr. Ingram: No, I do not. There is no question but that there is a risk attached whenever we deploy our armed forces. However, our forces know what they are being asked to do. They are professional, dedicated and highly trained people. On this particular occasion, they have a specific role within a specific and tight mandate that has a specific time frame. There is also a humanitarian element to the deployment. If we can solve this problem by means of EU and UN action, I am sure that the British people will be on our side, and British forces will have done a great job once again in the name of this country.
Mr. Tom Clarke: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, and his clear declaration of the Government's logical and realistic response to an extremely serious problem.
I turn now to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington). Those of us who were part of an all-party group that had the privilege of visiting Rwanda towards the end of last year recall that the President of Rwanda warned that he would not hesitate to send troops into the Democratic Republic of the Congo if he perceived a threat to his country's borders. It would be absolutely wrong for Britain to stand by and watch a repeat of the genocide that has taken place in the region, especially when the UN has invited us to contribute and we have the support of the EU.
Therefore, I again welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. In the circumstances, if it becomes necessary for the Government to add to Britain's contribution, we should not hesitate to do so.
Mr. Ingram: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is another Member with a very close interest in this particular part of the world. I can tell him that the Government of Rwanda welcome this initiative, as do neighbouring states. All those countries are very keen to resolve the very deep problems in the area, as they realise that the problems could spill over their borders. That is why there is tremendous international support for the deployment, as my right hon. Friend's remarks have underlined.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Minister of State should hang his head in shame at this statement. We are making a token contribution to a token force that is going into a boiling cauldron of a situation. If the international community was even half serious about dealing with the matter, the deployment would involve a properly organised UN force with a properly organised UN mandate. What we have instead is a confusion that involves a multinational force sitting alongside UN forces. The forces involved are wholly inadequate for the confusion of tasks that have been set. Nothing that the Minister of State has said can disguise
856
the fact that the deployment is simply a little gift from the Prime Minister to the President of France that will allow the EU to strut its stuff on a stage that it should not even contemplate. The sooner we can get out of this disastrous engagement, the better.
Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman is applying his usual judgment in coming to his conclusion—although he may change his mind tomorrow, as he has done in respect of other matters.
I do not hang my head in shame about this. I think that we can hold our heads up in relation to the commitment that we are making. That commitment is being made on the basis of what we have been asked to do by the UN, which has identified a shortfall in its current force strength in that part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It has asked us to do something, and we have decided to do what we can. Our participation will be for a limited period. We recognise the dangers that exist, and we do not undertake the deployment lightly. All the matters involved have been properly assessed, and we have studied the rules of engagement to determine the basis on which our people will be deployed. We have also assessed the force protection that will be required when we deploy our personnel. If the hon. Gentleman thinks otherwise, he has not understood for one moment the way in which this Government—and previous Governments—arrive at conclusions when deploying forces. We do not make this deployment lightly, but we recognise that we have international commitments. I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that those commitments must be understood and adhered to.
Tony Lloyd: My right hon. Friend the Minister will be gratified to know that Labour Members recognise that the role being taken by the Government is an honourable one. The crisis in the Congo has existed for many years and it has, alas, been too much ignored by the world community. I therefore welcome today's announcement.
It is clear that the operation involves very limited numbers of personnel, as has already been noted. Opposition Members who have spoken about a force that could solve the problems in the Congo simply do not understand the politics, geography and nature of the conflict taking place in that enormous country.
The real issue was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) earlier. We must be engaged diplomatically to make the military intervention worthwhile, and that means bringing pressure to bear on our friends in Uganda and Rwanda, who allowed the rape of the Congo by their own troops, and on President Mugabe in Zimbabwe—nowadays our less good friend. Intervention from other African countries must be brought to an end to allow the Congo to reconstruct itself. As my hon. Friend said, in the end, the solution cannot be only military.
Mr. Ingram: I can add little to what my hon. Friend said. I recognise that he fully supports the gist and thrust of my statement and of my responses to other questions. I am grateful for his comments. He understands that the deployment is for a limited period, that it has a clear objective and that the wider objectives must be met by

857
other means. There must be intensive efforts, not just from the UK alone but through multinational approaches; where people have influence on countries in the region every effort must be made to find the diplomatic solution that is required. It will not be easy and it will not happen quickly, but we must at least try.
Rev. Martin Smyth: As someone who has had friends working in the region for years, I share the concern expressed by the Father of the House; the Minister referred to 1998, but the situation has existed for a long time. How can we intensify diplomatic efforts when the problems have been going on for so long? In recent weeks, we have seen pictures in the papers and on television of French troops who can do nothing because they are not strong enough. Does the Minister agree that such pictures do not give us great hope that the force will be effective if it takes only a peacekeeping role? I should like to think that chapter VII gave us more facility for movement within the law.
Mr. Ingram: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman examines what chapter VII is about; a different role is accorded to MONUC, the current force, which operates under chapter VI. The rules of engagement could be different under a different UN mandate.
I cannot disguise the fact that the force is small. That is clearly the case. However, that is what the UN requested in the mandate under resolution 1484 and we are responding accordingly. We are a small part of a small multinational force, with a specific purpose for a short period.
The hon. Gentleman asked how we could intensify the diplomatic effort. We shall do so in the usual way. We have to try to encourage people in the region to take on ownership of the problem, and we must have confidence in their ability to do so. We must help them with security reforms and other aspects so that they can deal with the threats that could knock them off course. We are making a major contribution to achieve those objectives, both through the UN and unilaterally through the Department for International Development and other means. We have a clear view about what is required in the region, but we need to encourage others to come along with us. We have shown that we can achieve progress elsewhere in the world and, hopefully, we can deliver that in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Ann McKechin: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and the engagement of British forces and the international community in the area. As he is aware, the current mandate is restricted not only as to the length of time but as to the geographical area that the force will cover—a small area around the town of Bunia. In the past few weeks, 70 per cent. of the population has fled the town as a result of violence. This week, there have been reports of further violence in North Kivu. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the mandate of the MONUC forces, which will be reconsidered by the UN this month, should be extended to include the entire Ituri region and that their
858
number should be strengthened so that they can adequately protect the population of the whole area and not just of Bunia itself?
Mr. Ingram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her welcome for the statement. She is right: the mandate restricts us to a small part of the DRC. As we know, the country is 10 times the size of the UK. It is extremely difficult to police such a sizeable area and to deploy troops as meaningfully as some people might want.
On the future mandate for MONUC, the number of troops to be engaged, their role and the way in which they will deal with related problems beyond the immediate area and elsewhere in the DRC is a matter for the UN as the situation develops. We can move forward to achieve our objectives only when we have co-operation from other countries. We shall probably return to that issue in the future once the new mandate has been determined.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Although we appreciate the wise and timely caveats of the Father of the House, we fully support the intervention. However, with hindsight, does the Minister not think that it was highly inappropriate and unwise for the Government to have sanctioned arms sales to all five combatants in the Congo less than two years ago?
Mr. Ingram: An arms embargo has been in place since 1993 and new rules now apply on the sale of weapons to surrounding nations, which may or may not intervene. Tight rules apply and they are constantly under review. If any of those nations were able to contribute positively, or required weapons because they faced a threat to their borders or were working under the auspices of the UN or other African nations, they would need to be equipped.
It would be nice if there was a simple solution, but there is not. The situation is complex and the scene is shifting all the time. If the hon. Gentleman has a simple solution, perhaps he would let me know and I shall certainly pass it on to those at the UN who are discussing the way forward. I do not think that his remedy would solve the existing problem.
Mr. David Drew: May I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend? The intervention is long overdue. Does he agree, however, that history shows that intervention, especially in Africa, is often too little, too late? What has happened to the proposal floated at the UN some years ago for a rapid reaction force to which developed countries and some developing countries would contribute? Such situations will always get worse unless there is early intervention. No one wants to put British troops at risk, but we need to recognise that we have both humanitarian and security obligations to take early and serious action to ensure that the combatants know where we stand.
Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend makes some good points. However, the UN has identified a problem; it has asked for a rapid response, which has been given—albeit within a tight framework. That is the best assessment of

859
what is required of the interim force in assisting the UN to build up to the larger scale force that it judges will be able to deal with some of the problems faced in Bunia—where we are sending our personnel—and the surrounding area.
We cannot rewrite history. There is no point in saying that we can undo the mistakes of the past. We can only face up to the current reality and that is what we are trying to do. I repeat: the situation is complex and fraught with many dangers, but we are determined to assist in the best way that we possibly can.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. A number of hon. Members are still seeking to catch my eye; shorter questions will allow me to call as many of them as possible.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: As a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union trip to Rwanda, ably led by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), may I say that we saw the results of the genocide in 1994? We literally walked through the skulls and bones of some of the people who were murdered during that genocide, which took place while the world looked on. Although I totally support sending a UN force to the area, for the reasons that I have given, it is important to remember that the situation is very complex. We ought to remember that the genocide in Rwanda was extended, unintentionally, by the French backing the wrong side.
Mr. Ingram: We can all revisit history and find many lessons about what different countries, including our own, have done in the past. That is why I make the point that there are undoubtedly, lessons to be learned, but the scenario is different on this occasion. There may well be a threat of genocide, but it has not yet manifested itself. By acting as we have done, at the request of the UN, I hope that that threat can be dealt with, so that the problem is avoided, but there is no certainty in any of this. If such things happen, the world has to react accordingly to that new threat. The approach to this matter has been measured and focused. Decisions have been made on the best assessment that the type of results that we are looking for will be delivered to stabilise the situation and to allow the UN to move forward on the basis of that stability and deal with the key issues, so that the possible threat of genocide and all the other risks that flow from that can be avoided. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments, and I am sure that he learned a lot on that visit.
Patrick Mercer: As a young officer, I was taught that any operation that starts without a crystal-clear mission is likely to start and probably end in chaos. May I bring the Minister back to one of the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin)? What is the military mission on which our soldiers are being sent?
Mr. Ingram: I shall not reiterate the basis on which the multinational force has been put together. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the mission?"] I shall come to the mission precisely in a moment. In relation to the
860
parameters of what we have been asked to do on the mission, a recce team is currently finding out the scale of the problem, so that we can then direct our resources at it. I indicated in an earlier answer that we have representatives of other non-governmental organisations as well as of other Departments out there who may be able to take on some of the engineering tasks, if they are so defined.
There will be an engineering and airlift capability to allow the deployment of the force. To get the aircraft in, the airfield needs to be secured and made safe and workable. That is the basis of the mission; it does not extend beyond that. Our forces are not involved in peacekeeping duties and, therefore, they will not be engaged in the manner that some hon. Members fear. They will not be sucked into something else. Their mission will be precisely as I set out in my opening statement and as I have said in my answer now.
Hugh Robertson: The Minister mentioned in his statement that the force will help to stabilise Ituri province. If it is only mandated for self-defence at the moment, how will it effect that stabilisation?
Mr. Ingram: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that we are talking about a multinational force and the way in which it will carry out its role. The rules of engagement under chapter VII are very clear.
Mr. Jenkin: Answer the question.
Mr. Ingram: I wish the hon. Gentleman would stop heckling every answer that I try to give. He has had his opportunity, and he will have other opportunities to respond.
Of course the way in which the multinational force deals with the situation will be defined in the terms of the mission set out by the contributing nations, and its role, which comes under the chapter VII of the UN charter, will be precisely to stabilise that area, to ensure that there is a peaceful environment and to lower the temperature in the area. If there is conflict, that must be dealt with by those who have to meet those responsibilities and, of course, in the interim, that will be the multinational force.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: We have not had a clear mission statement, and I would rather trust the judgment of my hon. Friends the Members for Newark (Patrick Mercer), for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) and for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), who were all Regular Army officers and know a great deal about such situations. In Sierra Leone, we committed troops on the ground and, in Zimbabwe, we had a British military advisory and training team. Unlike those areas, where Britain had a responsibility, both historical and current, there is no current or historical British interest in Congo. It is Francophone-zone country, so surely we should be looking to France and Belgium to shoulder responsibilities and to look after their own interests.
Mr. Ingram: Increasingly, in dealing with matters of global security, small or large, international coalitions are put in place. This mission will be EU-led, with the

861
French as the framework nation. The Belgians are already committed to it. Other EU nations have been asked to become involved and some, probably with less historical engagement in Africa than we have, are considering putting in support. Non-EU nations are doing the same. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that willingness to broaden the international approach to such issues, rather than seeing them as the problem of one nation or a simple, straightforward group of nations. This is about internationalising the solutions to such problems. That is what the UN was originally set up for and, of course, the European security and defence policy is now taking a small part of the ownership of that role.
Mr. Bill Wiggin: I lived and worked out in Beni and Bunia in the Kivu region in 1991, and I have the greatest reservations about this mission. The Father of the House was absolutely right when he mentioned that our troops will be exposed to malaria. In fact, it is probably the most virulent strain in the whole of Africa, particularly cerebral malaria, which I was unfortunate enough to catch out there. The people there are good people, and, to some extent, I welcome what the French and the Belgians are doing. Why are we not doing the same in Zimbabwe?
Mr. Ingram: Well, that is an interesting development. Is the hon. Gentleman asking for military intervention in Zimbabwe?
Mr. Wiggin indicated assent.
Mr. Ingram: Well, I really do find that surprising. The whole thrust of most of the questions and my responses to them has suggested that although there should he a military presence to try to stabilise the region, the longterm solution is diplomatic. That is precisely what we are seeking to do in Zimbabwe, by doing all that is required so that that country is held in opprobrium not just by Europe and elsewhere, but by Africa, to make people understand the scale of its problem. Most people are now seized of that, which is why there is an intensive effort for change in Zimbabwe, but the hon. Gentleman suggests that military intervention is required. How many troops?
Mr. Bellingham: One sniper.
Mr. Ingram: How many troops would be required? The facetious way in which the hon. Gentlemen approach this shows that they have no understanding of international affairs. If the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) is now saying that we should opt for assassination, that is a very dangerous road to go down, and I am not so sure that those on the Conservative Front Bench would support him.
Mr. Mark Francois:I am afraid that I have to tell the Minister that, despite repeated questions, he
862
has been very vague about the ultimate mission that this recce is designed to support. France is described in his statement as the framework nation, providing the military commander. Can he please explain to the House what will be the command and control relationships above that level? How will they interrelate with the UK Ministry of Defence?
Mr. Ingram: The likelihood is that we will have a lieutenant colonel in command of our deployed forces, under a French brigadier. A command and control structure will then be established in Paris, to which we are sending six officers, so we will have an input into that. We will have a liaison officer with the UN MONUC forces. The command and control structures that apply are those that normally apply in such circumstances. Of course reporting back is a process that happens in every engagement. What the forces do must be clearly defined, and there must be clear reporting mechanisms in that overall command and control structure. That is no different from what happens in Macedonia, Afghanistan and Iraq, so there is nothing new about this. Opposition Members may have ESDP up there in lights, but the command and control structures are as robust and well-tested as they have ever been.
Gregory Barker: I hope very much that our officers on the ground out in the Congo are able to articulate the military mission more clearly than the Minister was able to do today to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer). In the event that, before September, there is a significant escalation in fighting or a major deterioration in the security situation out there, will he look to extract this small force or to reinforce it?
Mr. Ingram: If the situation changes, the planning changes, and the decision changes accordingly. It is no different from any other mission into which—[HON. MEMBERS: "Wait and see."] I do not know whether Conservative Members want us to be there or not. It is clear that they have taken on the mantle of the Lib Dems—they are trying to face both ways. We have gone from assassination in Zimbabwe, as suggested by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk, to a fulsome welcome for the intervention—but by NATO, not by ESDP—to the demands of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker). What is he saying? If he is saying that, if the situation deteriorates, do we carry on with our planning assumptions, the answer is if the situation deteriorates and changes dramatically, that must be taken into account in all the planning assumptions.
Mr. John Bercow: Is that an "extract" or a "reinforce"?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Armed Forces Personnel
[Relevant documents: The Sixth Report from the Defence Committee of Session 2002–03, A New Chapter to the Strategic Defence Review (HC 93); Minutes of Evidence taken before the Defence Committee on 11th December 2002, from Major General A D Leakey CBE, Chief Executive, Army Training and Recruiting Agency (HC 124—i); and Minutes of Evidence taken before the Defence Committee on 18th December 2002 from Dr Lewis Moonie MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence, on Legacy Pension and Compensation Issues (HC 188i).]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Gillian Merron.]
2.22 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram) rose—The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram) rose—
Mr. Paul Keetch: Round 2.
Mr. Ingram: I can assure hon. Members that it will be longer than the first.
At a time when we have the achievements of our armed forces very much in our minds, it is right that the House should focus on the people who have served our country so well. That is why I welcome today's debate.
I intend to use today's debate to focus on how we support our forces in carrying out their difficult tasks. I intend to deal with equipment, personal kit and welfare support, all of which play a crucial role in helping the personnel in the field do their job. I also want to mention the programme of work that we have in hand to ensure that the armed forces are properly manned both today and in the future.
The skill, courage and professionalism of those men and women is not in doubt, and I know that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to their sterling work in Iraq and elsewhere. In recent years, we have asked a lot of them: in the Balkans, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and, of course, in Iraq. On every occasion, they have performed magnificently and to their usual high standards.
Most recently, in Iraq, we have again seen the commitment and fortitude of our armed forces in difficult circumstances, but progress has not been without cost. Thirty-seven UK personnel have died and more than 100 US personnel have lost their lives. I pay tribute to them and their sacrifice: giving up their lives so that we might live more safely in future, and giving up their lives for a better world. I also place on record my admiration of and gratitude to the families of those serving in the Gulf and elsewhere. Their support, in operations and at other times, is vital to our troops. Anything that undermines that support undermines the morale of our armed forces and endangers lives.
Although the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) will say more on this subject in his winding-up speech, I should note that one or two very high-profile errors were made in the way that we console and provide for the families of those who died. That was wrong and I will not try to excuse it. I hope, however, that isolated mistakes will not detract from the efforts made for all the
864
bereaved, and the support that individuals have provided—and are continuing to provide—to the families who have suffered such tragic losses. I can assure the House that we make huge efforts to get this right, because when it goes wrong it affects us all.
Mr. Bob Blizzard: As the nature of this debate suggests, our defence capability is only as good as the quality of our armed forces. Does the Minister agree that it is important not only to support our armed forces, and deal with the families, as he has described, but to recognise properly those who have fought in campaigns, risking—and in some cases giving—their lives? I therefore wholeheartedly welcome yesterday's announcement that the people—men and women—who fought in the Suez campaign in the early 1950s will now get the proper recognition that they have long deserved in the form of a medal. That long-standing injustice has been righted, and I congratulate the Government on listening to the campaign that I and other Members carried forward with the veterans—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point. I say again to the House that we should start this debate as we mean to go on, with short interventions when Members give way, and perhaps short answers, too.
Mr. Ingram: As usual, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will do my best.
The short answer is that I recognise the considerable work that my hon. Friend has been done on this issue, and I welcome his congratulation of the Government for our initiative in that regard. I also pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who had the direct responsibility for taking the issue forward. It was undoubtedly the right decision and has been welcomed not only in the community who have received those medals but more widely.
While the attention of the wider world has understandably been on Iraq, we must also remember the many thousands of our people doing equally good work elsewhere. In particular, we should continue to recognise the efforts of our armed forces here at home. In Northern Ireland, some 14,000 military personnel continue to act in support of the police. Over the years, the work of our armed forces has contributed to the more peaceful environment that now prevails. We should never forget that contribution, or the sacrifices made.
In addition, for the last 10 months, our armed forces have been asked to undertake a role for which they do not routinely prepare. I refer, of course, to the long-running dispute in the fire service, which I hope will soon be resolved. I would not deny that the need to stand up troops for firefighting duties was beginning to place progressive strain on our people and their ability to train and prepare for other tasks. The House will be aware of the reduced availability of our armed forces for firefighting announced over recent weeks by my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence.
None the less, it is Iraq that has been to the forefront of defence matters in recent months.
Angus Robertson: I want to pick up on the right hon. Gentleman's previous comment and the point

865
that he was about to raise: the fire service and Iraq. I am sure that he would also want to single out the work of the defence fire service at home and in Iraq, where they served with distinction in Basra, as they did in Kuwait. Has he reflected on the comment of one of the 30 DFS staff who returned from the Gulf recently, saying:
"I am happy to do that kind of work, under the MOD, but wouldn't be too sure if I had to do the same for a private company"?
Bearing that in mind, is the Minister still convinced that it is right to privatise the DFS?
Mr. Ingram: We have, of course, made no such decision. I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that we should always try to assess the best use of our resources, both financial and personnel. By making the right kind of judgments in the right kind of areas, we can release resources that meet our needs elsewhere. That is proper governance. Simply saying that everything is okay—that nothing needs to be fixed, examined or analysed—is living in a false world.
There is no doubt that the defence fire service makes a major contribution through its firefighting duties and made a superb contribution in Iraq, as it does in every conflict in which it finds itself. I have met members of the DFS and I know how strongly they feel about that. I have met the trade unionists on this issue and, as we move forward to a conclusion, all these factors will be taken into account when the decision is taken. The hon. Gentleman can sit in judgment on whether it was right or wrong when all the facts are known. However, I pay tribute to the members of the DFS for the role that they have played.
It would be wrong to discuss Iraq without touching on equipment and related matters. Without the right resources, our troops could not have performed as well as they did. Operations in Iraq, the first large-scale war-fighting conflict of the new millennium, have been a real test of our equipment and support systems. I would like to put into context the formidable effort that went into making that deployment a success. It was by far the largest deployment of UK armed forces since the 1991 Gulf conflict. We succeeded in deploying the same volume of personnel and materiel in just half the time taken in the earlier conflict, which is testament not only to our improved processes and equipment but to the commitment and hard work of men and women, military and civilian, throughout the logistics chain. They often work away from the limelight, but without them there would have been no victory, and I express my gratitude to them.
However, I cannot stand here today and deny that there were areas where our performance could be improved, or claim that everything went exactly to plan. Military conflict always leads to lessons being learned, and the best plans and predictions rarely survive the outbreak of hostilities. It is important that we capture and learn the lessons of this deployment and, more importantly, put in place solutions to avoid the recurrence of weaknesses. Hon. Members will know that we are in the early stages of a comprehensive and wide-ranging exercise to do just that. I do not intend to pre-empt any of its conclusions in this debate, but let me be clear about one thing: we will be rigorous in analysing
866
our performance and learning where we can do better. The Select Committee on Defence has commenced an inquiry into the same issues and I look forward, as I always do, to its detailed report and recommendations. It is important to note that in this area perhaps more than any other there is no room for politics to get in the way of progress. That is why we are taking this task seriously, and why we will welcome the Committee's independent analysis and conclusions.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the inquiry pay particular attention to the reason why desert boots and mosquito nets apparently arrived much later than they should have done? Will it also look at how the logistics line can be improved, especially if there is to be a commitment in the swamps of the Congo?
Mr. Ingram: Earlier, I said that there were valuable lessons to be learned. We should not minimise or downplay the scale of what we did in achieving a successful conclusion. I accept that we need a rigorous examination of everything that went wrong—it is not just mosquito nets or boots that we have to look at, but other equipment that was supplied. However, given the scale of the deployment of 45,000 personnel, it would be wrong to think that the logistics chain could not meet the demands of a small number of engineers and force support personnel in any future deployment in the Congo or elsewhere. Lessons have been learned over time, and there will be fundamental research and analysis of problems. I welcome the role played by the Select Committee, as it can cast a fresh eye over the issue, although I suspect that it will probably come to the same conclusions. Its very independence, however, will assist us in making sure that the right lessons are learned and solutions properly applied.
I visited Iraq three weeks ago and, although my visit was short, I picked up many important messages from our troops, ranging from senior commanders to frontline soldiers. I was delighted to be accompanied by the hon. Members for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and for Hereford (Mr. Keetch). However, I must tell the House that I learned from a press release issued by the hon. Member for Hereford afterwards that I had accompanied him on his visit—[Laughter.] I would like to take this opportunity to thank him for allowing me to do so. I do not know how I would have got there without him, but perhaps he would like to tell me.
Mr. Keetch: I am delighted to tell the Minister that I checked the wording of that press release, which said that I travelled with the Minister. I know that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) will have seen the Hereford Times which, when that press release was issued, correctly said that we all went together. However, in a letter that the newspaper did not publish, someone wanted to know who Adam Ingram was. I am sure that it was not written by a member of the armed forces.
Mr. Ingram: I hope that people in the area are learning about their Member of Parliament and the way in which he puts out press releases. However, there is a serious point. While I understand the need for publicity—I am not talking about his particular press release—both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat

867
spokesmen rushed too quickly to judgment and implied criticism in statements put out after their visit. If there was an easy and instant analysis to be made, it would have been done by now, and if all solutions were straightforward, as both hon. Gentlemen implied in their press releases, they would have been implemented. The truth is that neither is the case, which is why we are undertaking a methodical, thorough lessons process. We hope to publish early reflections from that examination in the near future, and a full report will be published in the autumn.
We have some early indications. While some members of the press may be disappointed to hear it, we believe that our equipment performed well, from the precision weapons delivered from the sea and air to the AS 90 artillery weapon, the Challenger 2 main battle tank and the modified SA80 A2 rifle.
While I am on the subject of equipment, I am pleased that today we have announced the result of a competition to further enhance the precision-guided strike capabilities of the RAF. That £120 million programme will be met by Raytheon's Paveway 4 system. The weapon will be built in the UK and will sustain some 200 jobs around the country—[Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is suggesting, most of those jobs will be retained in his constituency. However, that had no bearing on the decision, which was made purely on the basis of the quality, price and delivery of the system.
It is beyond dispute that the British armed forces have come away from the conflict in Iraq with a great deal to be proud of. I must, however, briefly address the very serious allegations of misconduct that have been levelled at some of our serving personnel.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: Before my right hon. Friend moves on, does he agree that it is important to support the families left at home, particularly the families of members of the Territorial Army who were called up, as they do not have the support systems that are available in barracks? Will he join me in paying tribute to Captain Paul Morton in Doncaster who still has soldiers deployed in Iraq and is doing a fantastic job by continuing to do everything that he can to keep families together, and support mechanisms in place?
Mr. Ingram: I acknowledge the point made by my hon. Friend, and I appreciate that his son is a member of the TA who served in Iraq. Given the extensive use made of reserves and TA personnel, it is important that we put in place such mechanisms. Captain Paul Morton is to be congratulated, as are others in the support chain. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary put a lot of effort into dealing with the issue. We identified the problem early, and made every effort to find answers, so it is gratifying to hear that that paid dividends.
I was referring to the serious allegations of misconduct levelled at some of our serving personnel. The House would not expect me to discuss individual cases. Every substantive incident reported to us is investigated thoroughly, diligently and with regard for due process. If wrong has been done, the individuals in question will be dealt with. However, I would not want the alleged conduct of a few individuals to detract from
868
the magnificent performance of our people in Iraq. Following the start of military action, within just one week, British forces made great early progress. That initial surge was followed by a mature and measured approach, gathering intelligence and assessing the situation, which paid dividends in the capture of Basra, the second city of Iraq, and a scale of accomplishment difficult to envisage
Thanks in no small measure to our people, decisive combat operations in Iraq came to an end over a month ago. Since that time UK forces personnel have been providing humanitarian relief and stabilisation. We aim to create an environment within which ordinary Iraqis will be able to construct viable, fair and free political and economic institutions, and to reintegrate themselves into the international community. But the work of those who remain in Iraq goes on, and it is as important as it has ever been. We have to date withdrawn over 20,000 of our men and women from theatre. Thousands are still there, engaged in an enormous range of activities alongside the Iraqi people themselves, helping them to establish local authorities and basic utilities, and ensuring law and order.
It is appropriate to make special mention of our reservists, as my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) did. The scale of the reservist contribution has been unparalleled in recent years, fully reflecting the aims in the strategic defence review that the reserve forces should be more integrated, relevant and usable. Those who deployed to the Gulf serve in reserve units and sub-units and as individual augmentees, and they have served with distinction alongside our regular forces.
It should not be forgotten that the presence of those reservists on operations owes much to their employers in both the private and public sectors, and the support that they have provided. I pay due tribute to them. In addition, hundreds of civilians, many from British industry, deployed alongside our troops in a variety of roles, and I pay tribute to their commitment and the vital part that they play alongside the UK armed forces.
Dr. Andrew Murrison: What is the Minister doing about reports that 80 per cent. of TA personnel deployed to the Gulf think that their employers might baulk at further deployments in the near future? Clearly, that has serious implications for the use of our Territorials in future conflicts.
Mr. Ingram: Because this was the first time that we have had to use such personnel in such large numbers, one of the lessons learned must concern the reaction of employers. Work must be done in that community too, to make everyone in this country realise the importance of the reserves and TA personnel, who can be called upon at times to deal with the threats to this nation. If employers thought that there was an easy solution, they would be wrong. If we thought that there was an easy solution, we would be wrong as well. That is why a great deal of effort went into speaking to employers in advance of the possible conflict in Iraq, and more effort will go into that. We must get it right, because those reserves and TA personnel are critical, and they could be used at any time. We hope that industry and employers, public and private, will begin to understand that crucial message.

869
In creating a better future for Iraq, work continues to identify and secure suspected weapons of mass destruction sites. That will take time. Saddam Hussein had years to hide his WMD programme, and those who expect instant success are being both unreasonable and naive. In addition, our forces are playing their part in the wider coalition efforts to secure evidence of war crimes and other atrocities undertaken by Saddam's regime. I am sure that the whole House will join me in welcoming the recent appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) as our special envoy on human rights issues. I know that she will be as fearless in exposing the barbaric excesses of Saddam Hussein's regime—many of them committed right up to the outbreak of the conflict—as she will be in helping to set new human rights standards for the new Iraq.
A number of objectives remain Outstanding in Iraq. British forces will maintain an appropriate presence in Iraq for as long as necessary to achieve our aims of helping Iraq to become once again a viable and self-standing state. Once the job is done, we will leave.
Mr. Dalyell: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that last Wednesday the Speaker gave me an Adjournment debate on the detention of Tariq Aziz? Is it not important that, whatever we may think, there should be trials fairly soon? Otherwise, the west is not setting the example. People who may have done terrible things deserve at least to be put on trial, and fairly soon.
Mr. Ingram: I have nothing further to add to the response that my hon. Friend received in that Adjournment debate. Clearly, the task is to set proper standards, as we seek to do elsewhere when we deal with difficult regimes and the reconstruction of damaged countries. It is important that we try to obtain information that is around and which could still pose a threat, not just to the coalition forces, but to the world overall. Dissemination and proliferation of the material that we know to be there pose a threat internationally. We must establish what war crimes were committed and set out the framework for moving forward.
Mr. John Bercow: Given that those charged with weapons detection and those responsible for national reconstruction are different groups of people, can the Minister throw any light on why it was only last week that the Prime Minister was able to announce and focus on the formation of the new group charged with the identification of weapons of mass destruction? Can the right hon. Gentleman further say, at least in broad terms, within what time scale the important work of that multinational group is to be undertaken and reported?
Mr. Ingram: The time scale will be determined by what the group finds and its success in speaking to the people currently under our control—those who have given themselves up, or been taken into the coalition forces' control for the purpose of identifying the type of activity in which they were involved and the threat that they posed and could have continued to pose if they had remained at large. I do not recognise the way in which the hon. Gentleman describes the Prime Minister's
870
decision. Such things obviously take time to put in place. They have to be defined and structured, and a range of command relationships has to be put in place. Personnel have to be mobilised. The Iraq survey group is being marshalled for that task. It will have an important role, it is sizeable, and it will now commence its important activity, which I know the hon. Gentleman would welcome.
Let me move on to the operational welfare package and the issue of welfare support for our deployed personnel. We recognise the importance of making proper provision for the welfare of service personnel who are deployed on operations. From the outset of operations in the Gulf, we worked hard to deliver the operational welfare package. Those personnel who are deployed to the main operating bases in theatre have access to a comprehensive welfare package which includes welfare telephones, internet access, electronic aerogrammes—e-blueys—shop facilities, fitness equipment, newspapers, and TV and radio broadcasting.
For those personnel deployed in Iraq, I hope the House will understand that in the early days at least, the welfare package is necessarily more limited. At present it consists of telephones, British Forces Post Office mail, e-blueys and British Forces Broadcasting Service radio. We also organised, at the appropriate time, and with the support of the Royal Mail, a temporary scheme for families and friends to send free packets of 2 kg or less to personnel deployed in the Gulf. There will inevitably be questions and sometimes complaints about the operational welfare package facilities currently available to our forces in Iraq. I think that that is, to an extent, because the operational welfare package has been such a successful and valued initiative, and long overdue. Our people have grown accustomed to it, and welcome the benefits that it provides. The facilities that we can reasonably and safely provide will necessarily be limited in more dangerous or hostile environments. Now that the situation in Iraq is becoming safer, we are working hard to deliver comprehensive welfare support. The currently limited operational welfare package provision in Iraq will be extended over the coming months.
The need to look after the front line does not mean that we should forget the needs of those at home, however, and we did not do so. The operational welfare package has been extended to help home units to look after the welfare of families of deployed personnel. With effect from 1 April this year, units have been allocated funds for measures to improve communications between a unit and its families. Those funds can also be used to improve general welfare for families in ways such as the improvement of internet access at unit community centres. Feedback from the services has been most favourable. We have sought to the maximum extent possible through the operational welfare package and other more local measures to provide some measure of an ordinary existence for our people and their families at a quite extraordinary time.
We well recognise that times of conflict place unique pressures on our people and we have put increasingly sophisticated procedures in place to try to manage the transition for them as they leave the operational theatre and return home to their families. In line with current psychiatric advice, we avoid releasing personnel

871
immediately after a conflict wherever possible. Instead, we have introduced a two to three-day period of recuperation for all service personnel returning from the Gulf—both regulars and reservists. The aim is to give people time to deal with issues raised by combat in the company of those who understand and have shared the experiences. As part of that process of recuperation, personnel receive a post-deployment briefing package covering stress reactions and the problems that may be encountered on returning home to families. Leaflets provide guidance on who to consult if personnel experience problems—for example, their commanders, padres, social workers or medical officers. We are also providing information to the families of returning personnel.
I should like to touch on two further important post-deployment health-related topics. The first is Gulf veterans' illnesses. As a group, veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf conflict report more ill health than non-Gulf veterans. However, the scientific and medical community does not accept the existence of a unique Gulf war syndrome, and neither does the Ministry of Defence. The independent Medical Research Council recently published a report that confirmed those findings. We are studying the MRC's report, which contains recommendations for further work, and we will consult widely in considering our response.I should make it clear, however, that we recognise that the complaints from which some veterans suffer may have been caused by their service, and in many cases we are consequently paying substantial pensions.
Regarding the recent operations in Iraq, last month we announced proposals to carry out research into the health, both physical and psychological, of those who were involved in the conflict. It is, of course, too soon to know whether health concerns will emerge following this conflict, but if they do, we will want to know about them and respond appropriately.
Let me now turn to the effort to sustain our armed forces. I shall deal first with manning. The trained strength of the armed forces grew last year by more than 1,600. That increase and a decrease in the manning requirement resulted in an overall reduction in undermanning of some 2,500.
Bob Russell: Would the Minister care to comment on suggestions that the strength and configuration of the British Army is to be changed? In particular, will he comment on the suggestion that 2nd Battalion Royal Anglian Regiment may be disbanded? I hope that he can give an assurance that that is not correct. Is he aware that the Royal Anglian is the only regiment that recruits across the nine counties of eastern England?
Mr. Ingram: There is a tendency for people to set the hare running; if it is the Royal Anglian today, it may be another regiment tomorrow. There are no plans to disband the Royal Anglians and their battalions. That is the situation. The Royal Anglians are a well respected regiment of the British Army and their recent efforts in maintaining peace and stability in Afghanistan are a clear demonstration of their professionalism. I witnessed what they did in Kabul. I met three members of the regiment, in the Pioneer Corps, who had volunteered to go to Iraq. Their professionalism and
872
commitment are without question. I hope that I have dealt with the specific point that the hon. Gentleman raised.
Mr. Keith Simpson: On the specific point made by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), the future of 2nd Battalion Royal Anglian Regiment is of interest to me because it is recruited from an area that I represent. Recently, an MOD spokesman, commenting on this very point, said:
"There will be changes to the Armed Forces commensurate with the threat to the UK. There may well be units to be disbanded, but it's not been finalised."
That is slightly different from what the Minister said.
Mr. Ingram: I was asked a specific question. We have no current plans to disband the Royal Anglians, but I say to the hon. Gentleman that he should wait for the White Paper, which will be published later in the year. I think that the hon. Gentleman who raised this question represents Moray and Nairn—or is it just Moray?
Angus Robertson: Just Moray.
Mr. Ingram: That is a pity. It was a lovely bit of the country when it was joined together.
The point about saying that everything should remain the same and that nothing should change is that it ignores facts that we have to face up to. I was asked a specific question about a specific regiment. There are no current plans and there is no hidden list. The same speculation has occurred in Scotland in respect of the Black Watch and it will probably apply to other regiments as well. Such speculation sets a hare running, causes problems and may affect recruitment. If there is any playing out of any change in posture, including in relation to the range of activities that are carried out and the size of the armed forces, it will be carefully dealt with. Such changes are properly explained and delivered, and there will no doubt be extensive debate about them in the House. We are not at that stage.
Mr. Mark Francois: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Ingram: I am conscious of the time and I want to move on.
Mr. Francois: It is very important.
Mr. Ingram: I am sure that it is, but it is not very important to me. I was indicating—
Mr. Francois rose—Mr. Francois rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Ingram: I was speaking about growth in trained strength and the fact that that is welcome news.
Mr. Francois: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I fully appreciate that the Minister can take the decision not to give way, but as someone who served in the regiment that hon. Members have been discussing, I

873
must put it on record that I think that it was extremely discourteous that he did not give way to me. Do you not think that he is being impolite?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter not for the Chair, but for debate. In any case, the hon. Gentleman has now put his point on record.
Mr. Ingram: That is why I made the right judgment in my earlier comment.
The growth in recruitment is welcome news, but we should not be complacent. We still need to work hard to ensure that we recruit and retain the right numbers of people in the right occupations for the medium and long term. The recruitment climate remains as tough as ever, with very low unemployment and more young people than ever before in further and higher education. None the less, I am pleased to be able to tell the House that, for the third year in a row, numbers joining the services have increased, and the overall recruitment target for the services was exceeded last year. We estimate that some 6 per cent. of those joining came from the ethnic minorities, although we must continue to increase the attractiveness of a career in the armed forces to members of our ethnic minority population.
Patrick Mercer: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Ingram: I am conscious that others may wish to intervene, but I have taken a lot of time in trying to deal with a range of issues and I have taken a number of interventions. I hope that the Hon. Gentleman will excuse me.
Mr. Bercow: We are enjoying it.
Mr. Ingram: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is enjoying it. That is why he has a big grin on his face.
What I take from those achievements, however, is that 26,000 bright, adventurous and ambitious young people chose to give the armed forces the highest accolade that they can by entrusting them with their careers and their futures. It says much for the reputation of our forces that so many make that choice.
Another priority has been to retain as many of our personnel in service as we can in line with the need to maximise operational effectiveness and career opportunity by maintaining a proper balance between age and experience. Pay is obviously an important issue in this respect. The need to recruit, retain and motivate suitably able and qualified people lies at the heart of the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body's work, and the unique circumstances of service life are a key consideration.
Patrick Mercer: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Ingram: I know that the hon. Gentleman was a serving officer. I do not know whether he wants to ask for a pay rise now, but I wish to finish my point about the importance of pay.
874
I am therefore pleased that, for the fifth year in succession, we were able to accept the AFPRB recommendations in full, including above-inflation increases in pay, allowances specifically designed to compensate for separation from families, and new pay arrangements for service medical and dental officers. That has directly benefited the majority of personnel deployed in Iraq. In addition, the review body endorsed proposals to offer financial retention initiatives to certain submariners, Royal Signals personnel and Royal Air Force NCO aircrew.
I am aware that operations in Iraq have served to prompt international comparisons, which are inevitably complex. Following the research it commissioned into the remuneration packages of other countries, the AFPRB was reassured that the UK package compared favourably. None of the countries surveyed provides a more generous package across the board. Given that our personnel are increasingly working in a multinational environment, we welcome the AFPRB's intention to repeat that research periodically to keep abreast of any relative change.
Patrick Mercer: I welcome the welfare package that the Minister is talking about, but I should like to bring him back to recruitment. He describes the recruiting climate as challenging and refers to the need to increase the size of the Army. Could he explain why certain English infantry regiments in the east midlands have been recruitment capped and are not allowed to bring soldiers under training?
Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman must realise that there is a training pipeline. To increase the capacity of the training system, we have to put in additional people, which means that we must then recruit sufficiently to allow that to take place. When the increase in recruitment commenced, there was concern that it was a blip, and that if we put too many people in, particularly from other duties, that would have been a bad use of resources. We therefore had to study the situation for some time before putting in additional personnel. Over time—hon. Members will be kept advised of this—an increasing amount of resources will go into the initial training pipeline. Measures are being put in place to try to reduce the wastage rate in order to make it more efficient. It is a complex issue to deal with, and I take the best advice from military commanders with responsibility in this area.
Patrick Mercer rose—Patrick Mercer rose—
Mr. Ingram: I think I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point.
We are working hard to address the accommodation needs of our people, both those in quarters and those in barracks. The programme to improve the standard of service family accommodation in Great Britain continues. For 2003–04, the Defence Housing Executive has been set a target of 1,200 houses for upgrade. Although that is a slower rate of progress than families would wish, it still represents steady improvement, and half the core stock in Great Britain is now standard 1 condition. Elsewhere, projects to upgrade service family accommodation are well under way in Gibraltar, Cyprus, Germany and Northern Ireland. Considerable

875
progress has also been made with the single living accommodation modernisation programme. Work at the first sites began earlier this year. Combined with other projects, a total of up to 70 establishments will see work on their sites in the coming year. We are also on target to deliver 30,000 new bed spaces by the end of 2008, rising to 60,000 in 2013. In short, we have a major programme of work in hand to deliver the manpower for today and to set the stage for sustainable manpower for tomorrow.
The reality is that sustaining the armed forces is not an easy undertaking. We are not looking for short-term, token solutions, but for a sustained programme of improvements—a solid foundation to give our people and their families the working and living conditions that they need, with a suitable financial package and a wider package of non-financial benefits. There is still work to do, but the increase in the size of the armed forces and the reduction in undermanning give us some assurance that we are putting the right policies in place.
As I speak, our people are hard at work in Iraq with coalition partners, the Department for International Development and non-governmental organisations. They are all working together to sustain law and order, facilitating the provision of humanitarian aid, rebuilding the vital infrastructure and, critically, providing hope for a people who have lived for many years without it. The quality of our people is undoubted, as is their determination to succeed. We are very fortunate in having men and women of such quality who wish to serve their country so determinedly and so well. As I have indicated, we are working hard to give them what they need to sustain themselves and their families. We know that we have to get the "people" issues right. We need to have the policies in place to deliver the people who can get the job done. We believe that we are on the right track, and we have made good progress this year.
The quality and commitment of our armed forces is acknowledged world wide. We must never take that quality and commitment for granted. The Government are determined to work as hard for them as they work for us, giving them the tools and support that they need to continue doing the difficult job that we ask of them.
3.4 pm
Mr. Keith Simpson: I begin by noting that some Members on the Government Benches may be slightly distracted by events beyond the Chamber. I am glad to see both Ministers in their places, and I hope that we shall still see them there at the end of the debate. Thinking about Cabinet reshuffles, I am reminded that in 1942 Mr. Winston Churchill, as he then was, had to have a major reshuffle because of a series of unfortunate events—the fall of Singapore, the escape of two German warships and disasters in north Africa. The then Secretary of State for War, David Margesson, was working in the War Office when his permanent secretary came to tell him the bad news that he had been sacked. Margesson said, "Right, who is to succeed me?", and P. J. Grigg, his permanent secretary, said, "Actually, it's me." That does not happen nowadays, of course: we know only too well that the person who knows when a Minister is on the move is not his permanent secretary, but his driver.
876
Much of what the Minister said can be warmly welcomed on all sides. We all congratulate our armed forces on their outstanding role in recent military operations in Iraq and their continuing role there. That applies not only to the military but to the Ministry of Defence civilians in support. As the Minister said, the deployment took place against the background of the usual training commitments, Northern Ireland, Bosnia and stand-by duty for the firemen's dispute. Our armed forces appear to be one of the few public sector groups upon whom the Prime Minister relies to deliver every time, despite very many constraints. The irony is that although they frequently protest about shortages in budgets, equipment and weapons, they deliver, which leads the Treasury to believe that they were crying wolf about those shortages. I hope that we are never in a position whereby they fail to deliver and the Treasury is thus proved wrong.
That ability to deliver and to move seamlessly from war fighting to humanitarian aid—that great flexibility and can-do mentality—is due mainly to the professionalism, culture and experience of the men and women of our regular armed forces and their volunteer reservists. They are not perfect, because they are a mirror of society. There are disciplinary problems, as in the rest of British society. However, as we all know, few armed forces can move so seamlessly from war fighting to humanitarian aid. As Ministers understand, that professionalism cannot be created overnight and, once lost, takes decades, rather than years, to recreate. We can all agree that one of the priceless assets of the Ministry of Defence is the men and women of our armed forces. Over the past decade, the MOD has argued for capability-led armed forces. People sometimes seem to believe that that refers merely to weapons systems. As we rightly move into developing network-capable armed forces, we must realise that that does not only involve a step change in technology and systems: the people still play a crucial role, and without them network capability will not happen.
Operation Telic was a success and showed the strength of the United Kingdom armed forces, but as the Minister said—I welcome his honesty—it also highlighted weaknesses. Some of those were due to the nature of the operation, but others, I have to say, were due to resource constraints and, at times, failures in departmental and Government policy. One of the jobs of the Opposition—and, indeed, all hon. Members—is to raise those points, but not in a carping way. Given that the Ministry of Defence is undertaking a review in the summer, hon. Members should raise the points so that errors are corrected.
Before I deal with those matters, I want to comment briefly on intelligence and Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Although the Ministry of Defence is not the lead player in the intelligence game, it has an important role. The Minister was drawn by an interviewer on "Today" in relation to what became a notorious time factor with regard to the Iraqis' ability to launch weapons of mass destruction. I suspect that that caused the Government some embarrassment. I do not blame the Minister; the problems lay beyond his responsibility. The crucial point is that intelligence and the way in which it was handled is at the core of the Government's current embarrassment over Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. It is no good the Government trying to

877
believe that that is something that specific journalists or disaffected members of the intelligence community have made up.
Most of us understand the problems of gathering, interpreting and using intelligence. However, the Government—perhaps for good reasons—stretched the intelligence to persuade the public and Members of Parliament about the nature of the threat. Once that is done and it has been decided—as the Leader of the House did—to talk about rogue elements in intelligence, the intelligence community is undermined. I say no more, but it is crucial for the Government to move away from that position. I place on record our appreciation of the work of the men and women in the defence intelligence community. In comparison with their colleagues in the other two intelligence organisations, they are not often mentioned.
When the Minister winds up, I ask him to say a little more about the outstanding cases involving disciplinary action and any matters that might be regarded as war crimes. I do not ask him for specific, detailed information, but hon. Members would like to know the number of outstanding cases and when he expects them to be resolved. Will he also comment on the impact of any future decisions by the International Criminal Court? Despite the full backing of the British Government and the views of British Government lawyers, several middle and senior ranking officers feel vulnerable.
Conservative Members believe that the welfare package is crucial to maintaining the morale of our armed forces and their families. However, we must also consider the impact of the constraints of the defence budget, the way in which people are organised and their tours of operation carried out on morale and decisions to stay in the armed forces. Too often, we misuse the word "overstretch". The 1998 strategic defence review described it as
"trying to do too much with too little manpower."
The Government believed that they had established a series of measures to deal with that. However, any reasonably objective view would be that the problem of overstretch remains and has in many ways got worse.
We can bandy about figures about the number of men and women, and the amount of trained manpower that is available. However, most objective observers and our people in the armed forces are only too conscious that the nature of operations, the problems of recruiting and retention and cutbacks mean that overstretch continues to exist and is likely, perhaps even despite the Government's best efforts, to get worse. The previous and the current Chiefs of the Defence Staff flagged that up.
The recently retired former Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, spoke about further international commitments before the recent commitment to the Congo. He said:
"If you asked us to go into a large-scale operation in 2004, we couldn't do it without serious pain. We must allow ourselves time to draw breath. If it was to be something of the scale that we have done this time, it would have to be some thing that the government is convinced is pretty important because I would tell them it would take a while to recuperate."
878
Only yesterday, the new Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir Michael Walker, gave evidence to the Select Committee on Defence. He said that our armed forces would take approximately 18 months to recuperate fully from operations in Iraq and that they would be unable to mount a medium-scale intervention such as that in Iraq until 2005.
Our military will do as it is told. The armed forces will argue strongly but if Ministers tell them to do something, they will get on with it. I suspect that there will be a continuing problem, given that our foreign and security policy is one of expeditionary force intervention for war fighting or humanitarian aid. What would happen if a major unforeseen crisis occurred in the next six months? It would cause the Government considerable problems.
Let us consider recruitment and retention. All Ministry of Defence surveys on the attitudes of serving members of the armed forces highlight continuing operations, the frequency of tours of duties and the narrowing gap between such tours as the greatest cause of dissatisfaction. Again, the Government have tried to deal with that, but the nature and circumstances of operations, the problems of having sufficient troops to deploy and the fact that many operations are concurrent mean that the difficulties will get worse. Ministers have to try to square the circle. Do they hope that they can increase the amount of available manpower for direct operations and the sort of service that was required to deal with the fireman's strike? Will they have to advise the Prime Minister that it may not be possible to undertake operations in future and that there may have to be a series of priorities?
Patrick Mercer: In an earlier intervention, my hon. Friend quoted a Ministry of Defence spokesperson in the East Anglian Daily Times. The spokesperson said:
"There may well be units to be disbanded, but it's not been finalised."
Surely that will exacerbate the problem that my hon. Friend so eloquently outlines.
Mr. Simpson: My hon. Friend is right and he leads me to the point that the problem is not new in the Ministry of Defence. We can argue about the amount of extra money that the Chancellor gave the Ministry last year. Most people in the military, including MOD civil servants, say that we are considering a standstill budget, perhaps with slight increases.
Angus Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with his party leader that privatising the defence fire Service would be a "privatisation too far"? Does it remain Conservative party policy to oppose the privatisation of the defence fire service?
Mr. Simpson: Yes, I think it is, on the ground that the defence fire service is deployed overseas on operations, which makes it uniquely different.
The pressures that are now placed on the Government mean that they are going to try to make savings in manpower to pay for the new programmes that they wish to introduce for network-centric warfare. That, again, will exacerbate the situation in terms of the

879
retention of some of the best people in our armed forces. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister has any new views on that.
General Lord Guthrie, Chief of the Defence Staff from 1997 to 2001, is an eloquent guardsman and a man with experience of military service at every possible level. He is also, in his own way—I say this in the most positive sense—a true Whitehall warrior, in that he understands the politics of defence and foreign policy. In a debate in the House of Lords last year, he said:
"Recruiting targets are not being met; ships and regiments are not properly manned; training is being reduced; and equipment is ageing and often not available. So far as defence is concerned, there has been, in effect, disinvestment. All this, I remind noble Lords, has been happening at a time when to many of us it appears that the threats to our security are becoming ever greaten"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 May 2002; Vol. 635, c. 311.]
Disinvestment means greater risk. There is a balance to be struck here; I understand that. But Air Chief Marshal Burridge, appearing in front of the Select Committee yesterday, talked about a culture in the Ministry of Defence—to provide savings to meet the new managerial requirements of defence—of "just in time". One day, "just in time" could become "just too late". In my opinion, that would be a risk too far.
I want to mention a number of issues just briefly, because I know that several colleagues wish to speak. The Minister rightly praised the role of our Territorial Army and our reservists. Under the strategic defence review, they are absolutely crucial for expeditionary warfare and humanitarian aid. That is not an either/or. In response to a point made about the attitude of employers, the Minister rightly said that many people still think of members of the Territorial Army as weekend soldiers who are static-based in the United Kingdom. We cannot perform the kind of roles that are now required without the Territorial Army; that is a fact. In addition, since 11 September, they are also to be required to play a major role in a new form of home security force to be set up in the autumn—we look forward to hearing details—to help to deal with the impact of any major terrorist incident here.
Many of us have been overwhelmed by comments from members of the Territorial Army and from employers about a series of organisational failures by the Ministry of Defence in relation to their call-up, and their pay and allowances. That is going to happen when we call up large numbers of men and women. However, I should have thought that, despite the size of the call-up, we could have had better systems in place by now. After all, we called up large numbers of people for Kosovo, and smaller numbers for Afghanistan. We have also had training exercises of one kind or another. I look forward to hearing from the Minister in the early autumn about the measures that are being put in place to ensure that these problems do not arise again.
It has come across loud and clear—as my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) said—that, unfortunately, many members of our territorial armed forces will think of leaving. Some have already told me that they intend to do so. Unless we catch this quickly, large numbers of employers, when interviewing someone for a job, could well have a negative view of that man or woman if they have a reserve commitment.
880
Ministers know only too well that the Territorial Army is not an add-on; it is crucial to their expeditionary warfare.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend and I share a significant defence interest: he has Swanton Morley in his constituency; I have a lot of people from RAF Marham living in mine. Is he aware that one of the main concerns among territorials and regulars across the board is the tidal wave of political correctness that is going through the whole of our armed forces? Does he agree that the time has come for us to exempt our armed forces from the provisions of human rights legislation?
Mr. Simpson: The tidal wave of legislation does not refer just to that. It also refers to the mass of targets, rules and regulations that apply not only to members of the armed forces but to our teachers and doctors and to the police. Many people in the Ministry of Defence are overwhelmed by bureaucracy largely brought in by the Treasury and implemented by the Ministry.
The Defence Medical Services have played a crucial role in previous large-scale operations, and they did so again in the Gulf. Fortunately, this time round, they were hardly used at all. Two issues have been identified from their deployment. The first is that large numbers of doctors in the regular armed forces were taken away from their jobs with their military units and effectively put into transit camps, but not used. A number of them have told me that they are now thinking of handing in their papers. Secondly, there were major problems with TA medics, many from the national health service, getting leave of absence. Ministers are going to have to get that right in future operations.
Mr. Keetch: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. Does he agree, however, that the work done at the Birmingham Defence Medical Services centre has been outstanding? I know from some of my own constituents who were injured in action that they received excellent treatment there. Like all our armed forces, when these services are called upon to act, they do so in an excellent manner. The hon. Gentleman is right about the reservists, but the Defence Medical Services centre in Birmingham is providing an excellent facility.
Mr. Simpson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Once again, that is the result of a can-do mentality. But a number of military personnel—both at operational level and among the medics—have said that we have been fortunate, in that the operations in which we have been involved have been short and sharp, and have not, thank God, involved large-scale casualties. We cannot assume that that will always be the case.
I welcome what the Minister said about the approach to pay and conditions, but I would like to highlight one factor that I know many hon. Members found appalling and which upset soldiers, sailors and airmen who were deployed during the firemen's strike. It cannot be right that the pay of a basic soldier risking his life in a fire dispute is 50 per cent. less than that of the fireman whom he is replacing. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the dispute, to many people, that seemed obscene and did more than anything else to highlight the pay of our soldiers at the bottom end of the scale.

881
I heard what the Minister said about our armed forces' total package. It sounds and looks good when compared with others internationally, but I would urge him once again to consider the possibility that when our armed forces are deployed on operations overseas, a way might be found of negotiating with the Treasury to ensure that they do not have to pay income tax during that period. That would be a small but positive indication, in financial terms, of how much we appreciate what they are doing.
The Armed Forces Pay Review Body has reported problems in service family accommodation and single-living accommodation while the MOD's Defence Housing Executive has said that it will be unable to meet its target to upgrade all core UK service family accommodation stock to standard 1 conditions by November 2005. No new targets have been set. Can the Minister tell us why?
Overstretch and working conditions take us back to what we heard at the beginning of the debate. There is no doubt that, from all the information we have, the average number of hours worked across the three services increased from 48.1 a week in 2000–01 to 54.5 a week in 2001–02 while the number of hours on duty increased from 75.1 to 89.5 a week. The point about that is that our armed forces have unlimited liability and they cannot strike. On the whole, however, they have a can-do mentality, so if they are told to be at Brize Norton by the end of the afternoon, they get there.
Eventually, however, if the stress and strain on people's lives, working conditions and families become too great, they will not stay. No matter how many people we get in through the front door, the problem, as the Minister knows only too well, is that we are losing people who have been trained and who have something to give the services after eight, nine or 10 years. That means we face a major difficulty.
The debate is about armed forces personnel. Conservative Members believe that the morale of our armed forces depends not just on the package that Ministers put forward, but on the constraints put in place by Government policy on commitments, the force structure and the working conditions that the Government provide for our armed forces.
The reduction in the armed forces has reached the point of critical mass. Field Marshal Lord Vincent, when Chief of the Defence Staff, reckoned that the Army would start seriously to lose its capability in many areas if it fell much below 100,000 men and women, as a lot of things just could not be done. We have not reached that stage yet, but we are close to it. If the figure drops below that, the Government will be forced not to do certain things. Alternatively, we will put our men and women in the firing line where they will be taking a risk too far. Instead of being just in tune, it will be just too late.
3.32 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: It is easier to put armies in than to pull them out, and it is with trepidation and deep concern that I support the Government in sending troops to the Congo. I say that partly because
882
in November 1990 I led an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to Zaire as it then was. Also present were my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) and two extremely perceptive and nice Conservative Members of Parliament, Jack Aspinwall and Harry Greenway. I say to Ministers, for heaven's sake, be careful about the Belgians and committing Belgian troops to this particular scheme.
I make that remark because of two conversations, both held at night and over meals. One took place in Kinshasa, the other in what used to be the province of Katanga. Bitterness exuded against the former Belgian occupiers and imperialists. I simply report what was said. I am a man with many Belgian friends, but it was remarked, "You British, the French, the Dutch and the Portuguese had far more understanding of colonial welfare and doing something for colonies. You cannot imagine what the Belgians were like." There is history here, and we really must take account of it.
Disregarding for a moment the rights and wrongs of the war against Iraq, let us look at the positive side in relation to the armed services. The British forces proved to be a well-trained battle group. They were extremely well led and their training in Canada, Germany and, indeed, Northern Ireland proved to be invaluable.
My right hon. Friend the Minister is surely right in saying that much equipment worked extremely well. The Challenger, with its desert modifications, was, I am told from many sides by those who were out there, an outstanding success, especially as Iraq is not like the Omani desert. I also understand that the Warrior was a considerable success. As my right hon. Friend said, however, there are lessons to be learned.
As one who favours a British force going to the Congo under United Nations auspices, I would like to ask certain questions. First, is the Ministry of Defence happy about the logistics of getting supplies into the field? My right hon. Friend said that there is to be an inquiry into the supply of equipment to the armed forces in Iraq. I hope that it deals specifically with the question of the speed with which supplies can get to the sharp end, where they are needed.
Will the inquiry also consider whether there was proper tracking of supplies? I refer in particular to the desert boots and the mosquito nets. Was there not a general problem of key equipment arriving weeks after it was required? If lines of communication had been further extended beyond Kuwait to Basra, would there not have been huge problems and will not such problems become evident, even if there is only a small force to start with, in the Congo? Is it not the expensive truth that in the 21st century we can mount an expedition only if we do what the Americans have done—have kit in store? I ask my right hon. Friend whether something can be said in the winding-up speech about that concept. I have no doubt that it is very expensive.
Did not much of the desert kit arrive late? After some weeks, clothing for temperate conditions was taken from the soldiers. Will they get it back when they return to Germany? I am told that there may be an element of waste, and that that kit has not yet been returned.
What about the future of the Royal Armoured Corps? If we reduced it further, to below critical mass, it would be unwise to rely on attack helicopters, which have not

883
all been a huge success. If I am wrong, no doubt some reference will be made to the subject.
The present Government possibly use servicemen more lavishly than any recent Government, sending forces here, there and everywhere. We must consider the whole question of retention. A young, unattached serviceman may be happy to go here, there and everywhere, but what about a non-commissioned officer with a young family, especially if that family is based not at Redford barracks in Edinburgh or somewhere in East Anglia but at Fallingbostel in Germany? Must not some allowance be made for family life?
I want to know about the future of that German base. What if we return to the earlier situation in Germany? Should we not consider arrangements that will need to be made if the man of the family must go off to Suffield in Canada or serve in the Congo, while his family remain at Fallingbostel or Luneburg?
Let me now ask a question of which I have given the Minister notice. Yesterday there was an IPU visit from Senegal. The delegates, particularly Professor Iba Der Thiam and Mr. Madieyna Diouf, pleaded with their British hosts, at a formal meeting, to try to protect their fishing off the coast of west Africa. They said that the rules had been broken, that the agreement that I have mentioned to the Ministry of Defence had not been honoured, that fishing net sizes did not accord with what had been agreed, and that there had been too many instances of dynamiting of fish, especially by Russian and Spanish fishermen. Would it not be of practical help to offer some kind of fishery protection to a country that has only two helicopters and one ancient frigate?
It is not just the west Africans who should be looked after, though. For heaven's sake what about the Scottish fishermen, and the English fishermen too? I think particularly of the havoc being wreaked on the Darwin Mounds reefs and the bottom-dredging of potentially rich seas, important for fish breeding, off the western isles of our country. Is there not a major and urgent role for fishery protection?
3.42 pm
Mr. Roger Gale: Let me begin with a tribute. At the beginning of the Iraq war, there was an incident involving helicopters in which aircraft were lost with all crew. One of the crew was Marc Lawrence, a young constituent of mine. That loss was a source of terrible grief for his parents, Ann and George Lawrence, who live in my constituency. Their grief was exacerbated by the fact that, given the circumstances of the war, it was not possible to conduct the most thorough of searches, although considerable resources were put into immediate effort. As a result, Marc's body was not recovered at that time. While others suffering equally terrible losses were at least able to bury their dead and begin the grieving process properly, George and Ann Lawrence were left in limbo. They did at least have the comfort of knowing that Marc died doing what he was trained to do, in the interests of his country.
I thank the Minister's military assistant in his private office, his staff and the Minister himself for the sympathy and courtesy that they extended to the family and for the arrangements that they have begun to make. I also place on record my thanks to our ambassador,
884
Chris Wilton, his wife and staff, who again took great pains to do everything they possibly could to alleviate the grief.
Thankfully, Marc's body, when time and circumstances permitted, was recovered. I understand that it will, if it has not already been, be returned to the United Kingdom and given a proper burial. As an aside, I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will consider erecting a fitting and permanent memorial to all those who gave their lives in the Iraqi conflict—and it is not over yet.
I have to inject a slight note of discord, but not in terms of the MOD or the armed services, although with hindsight it is easy to see that certain things may have been handled better. The discord relates to the media coverage of those events. While George and Ann Lawrence were still waiting for news of the body of their only son, the BBC found it appropriate to transmit what became known as the al-Jazeera programme.
I have already publicly criticised the media in general for what I have described as the soap opera coverage of the war. The sequence of events was turned by the media circus into something akin to the "Big Brother" house: people can watch that programme at any hour of the day or night.
It is true—I suppose we must be thankful for small mercies—that, at the time, the British media forbore from transmitting the al-Jazeera pictures of British dead. However, the BBC found it appropriate barely two months after the start of the conflict to show those same pictures. That was done in the teeth of opposition from the MOD and against the express wishes of the families of the dead. It caused, and I believe still causes, pain and very considerable offence not just to those families but to the friends of those comrades who gave their lives—in effect, to the whole service family.
Speaking on the morning prior to the transmission of that programme, a very senior BBC news executive said, and I paraphrase, that he found it in order to show the programme at that time because the bodies had come home and been buried. At that time, one body, that of my young constituent, most certainly had not. I believe that the arrogance of the armchair warriors in the editing and executive suites of White City has to be called to account by the House.
I do not wish for one moment to question the bravery or dedication of the embedded reporters, as they became known, or of those reporters working behind enemy lines. They had a terrifying job, literally, and a difficult one, and I am sure that they did it with great professionalism and courage. However, speaking as one who has had to make difficult editorial decisions as a producer and director, I do not believe that it was appropriate for that footage to be shown at that time, with nerves, feelings and sentiments still very raw.
I hope that, should we face such conflicts in future, our Government, of whatever political persuasion, will consider very carefully what facilities should be made available and their relationships with media organisations, to ensure that, while fair, proper and honest reporting, perhaps of military disasters, is not censored, by the same token, we do not turn war into a "Big Brother" media circus.
In that context, what I have to say next seems almost trivial, but I want to refer briefly to the future, to the

885
next generation of Marc Lawrences—young men and women who will come forward, train and dedicate themselves to the service of the United Kingdom, being prepared, if necessary, to give their lives. Many such young people come through our cadet forces—the Army, the Navy and the Air Force cadets, and indeed the combined cadet forces that still exist in some schools.
I have the honour to be president of the 1063 (Herne Bay) Squadron Air Training Corps. I am aware of the incredible contribution that those young people, and those who give of their time and energy to train them, make to our armed services. It is not simply an aside to say that our cadet forces also make a considerable contribution to the social environment in which young people grow up. I do not think that any Member of the House would quarrel with the fact that there are many young people who might otherwise be on the streets and up to all manner of mischief who find a worthwhile and valuable path to follow in our cadet forces.
On a recent visit to the training ship Royalist, I was not especially surprised to learn that 25 per cent. of the Royal Navy's intake now comes through the cadet forces. For those embarking on and completing basic training, the figure rises to 28 per cent., because of the drop-out rate in the first few weeks among those who have not had that previous military experience. By the time those intakes get to the point of becoming non-commissioned officers, the figure is higher still.
I am raising this issue now not simply because I want to make a plea for more money—but please, Minister, can the cadet forces have more money?—but because of a problem of attitude. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) mentioned political correctness, and I am afraid that it exists among educational establishments, and secondary schools in particular, in relation to uniformed groups. It is a sad fact that, while of course there are honourable exceptions, many schools now—too many, I would argue—do not welcome participation in uniformed activity, be it Army, Navy, Air Force, boy scouts, girl guides or St. John's.
When it comes to going on annual camp, or a young man or woman being able to take a training trip on the TS Royalist, for example—because there is only one square rigger like that available to the Navy cadets, they have to try to use it throughout the year, and inevitably it cannot always be done in holiday time and has to happen, quite appropriately, as part of the educational experience, in term time—we run into difficulties. I am told that for some, that presents very real difficulties, because certain educators do not find it appropriate to treat what most of us regard as a valuable experience as part of the educational curriculum. Given the emphasis that we now place on citizenship, and given the contribution to citizenship that the men and women of the armed forces in general and the cadet forces in particular make to the community. I cannot help feeling that we need to address this issue. I urge the Minister to talk to his colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills to see whether better guidance can be issued to ensure that those who wish to participate in these activities—I am certainly not talking about compulsion—are enabled to do so.
886
I have almost taken too much time, but as others have done I just want to place on the record, on my constituents' behalf, our appreciation for the work of the Territorial services. Several of my constituents have given their men—and in some cases, their women—to the war in Iraq. They have done so bravely, willingly and voluntarily. Within the armed forces there is an extended personnel: the husbands, wives and children who stay at home. They have supported their men and women from afar, using the facilities that the military have made available—blueys, food parcels, goods parcels, the internet, mobile phones—to make sure that they stay in touch with those at the front line. Indeed, one of my own constituents, a Territorial man, has been at the very front line—in the heart of Basra. Such support has ensured those in the front line know that they can get on with their job for their country, because the folks back home are okay.
There has been a problem with some employers, and future problems will doubtless result from current experience. We must address that fact, because there is no doubt in my mind that all of us owe an immense debt of gratitude to the men and women who are prepared to give so much, and who, sadly, in one or two cases have given everything.
3.57 pm
Mr. Paul Keetch: The House has just heard a very moving speech from the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), and I hope that the Minister was listening in particular to the earlier remarks about press coverage of certain aspects of the war. The hon. Gentleman's remarks were very important, and I hope that the Ministry of Defence's review of the involvement in Iraq will deal with the press issue as well.
It is of course right to begin by congratulating the British armed forces on their continuing professionalism and hard work in difficult circumstances, which I witnessed myself on a trip to Basra and southern Iraq with the Minister of State and the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). The decision to go to war in Iraq split this nation and, indeed, this Parliament, but the whole country has rightly been united in praise for the work of the armed forces, and I repeat that praise now. We should also praise their families because they also suffer who wait at home. Indeed, some 37 have had to accept paying the final price; we are fortunate that the number was not much greater.
The war in Iraq has had many implications for our armed forces and for our country as a whole. The lessons for the MOD are many—from equipment to logistics, from inoculations to pay. On visiting our forces in Iraq, I discovered that they were rightly proud of the job that they had done and were in good spirits, but there were several issues that they asked me to raise, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will respond to them in his reply.
The Father of the House mentioned logistic supplies, with which there were some considerable problems. I was told of a container that went missing for eight weeks. It was to be collected the day after I left—after peace had actually been won. Mention has been made of parcels sent from relatives to the troops, but the troops also like to send parcels back. They have to pay for

887
doing so—I do not know why. I have also been told that flights arranged from Germany for families to visit troops were arbitrarily cut from two per soldier to one. Can the Minister confirm whether that is true? There were other problems—more serious, in some respects—such as small arms ammunition shortages, which were rife at the beginning of the campaign. Air Marshall Brian Burridge referred to the problem with boots at the Defence Committee yesterday, and we also heard that the desert camouflage arrived too late.
Troops were concerned about other aspects of the war, particularly what they saw first hand of the looting. For example, every desk and computer was looted from Basra university, and the troops wanted to know why there were no plans in place to deploy them to help the situation. Amazingly, they were told that they had to protect various Ministry buildings and the land registry, but there were no plans to protect hospitals or universities.
Some positive things resulted. The reconstruction effort has been first class. The phone calls and the operational welfare package were well received, as were the e-blueys. Some of the equipment worked well: Challenger 2 was exceptional, Storm Shadow was very good and Raptor excellent. As one of the most vehement critics of the SA80 rifle, may I put on record my acknowledgement of the fact that it at last appears to be working correctly. I congratulate the Ministry of Defence on that: it has taken time, but it has finally got it right. The purchase of the Minimi light machine gun has also been welcomed by all the forces.
Our forces over there, like people here, were also asking questions about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. They want to know whether there were intelligence failures, whether reports were exaggerated, why they were not told of a tactical threat and why they crossed the line in some cases with no training in how to put on their nuclear, biological and chemical equipment. They, too, had doubts about the reality of the threat. We owe it to the people who put their lives on the line to establish whether the threat was indeed real.
The issue stemming from the recent conflict in Iraq that will probably have the greatest direct impact on our armed forces is that of overstretch. The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) rightly referred to what the retiring Chief of the Defence Staff said about the "serious pain" that would be inflicted if we were to undertake such an operation again. We recall that in February 2002 the Secretary of State told the House:
"We are using available resources to their maximum capability."—[Official Report, 11 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 4.]
If we were at our maximum capability then, surely we are well beyond it now. The Government have so far been coy about the long-term requirements in Iraq. Regulars and reservists in the region want to know how long they will be there, and what the commitment will mean for their lives over the next few years, especially if they are to be rotated on several tours.
Can the Minister tell us how many troops will be needed in Iraq for how long, and how many reservists will be sent out again? We know that it is a difficult judgment, but our forces need to be given some idea—will it be six months, 12 months, five years, or what? I think that they should be told. We also know that reservists are being relied on to a significant extent, and
888
there is anxiety about that. Without assistance from other nations to take the strain in peacekeeping, such a deployment for the British Army alone is unsustainable.
The strategic defence review projected that a brigade level force could be sustained in theatre indefinitely. Given that the current force in Iraq is considerably larger than anything the SDR envisaged, there must be either a size or a time limit to our deployment. The risk of unsustainability is even greater because pressures on reservists might encourage many to leave. With 48 per cent. of the reserve air forces reserves committed to operations and the Territorial Army undermanned in all but three units, are there any signs that the recent overstretch is affecting recruitment and retention in the reserves? I am told that there are.
Have estimates been made of expected outflow rates of regulars after the war in Iraq? That could also prove a problem. We have all heard reports from regulars and reservists that explain why some now want to leave the armed forces. Many reservists were not fully briefed about compensation packages before going to Iraq, and many who applied for hardship allowances have not yet received their payments. In some cases, payments of standard awards have been delayed. SI No. 309, the regulation governing compensation, was introduced in 1997 and is clearly outdated. Are there any plans to update it?
It is not only the financial arrangements that have been less than satisfactory. The vaccination programme that many of our reservists were asked to take has made some of them sick. There have been many reports of reservists receiving cocktails of inoculations in a short space of time, even including anthrax. That practice, which seems to have been followed regularly, is in stark contrast to MOD policy, as expressed in the House by the Secretary of State. Two reservists fell so ill after their inoculations that they could not even make it to the Gulf.
I hope that the Minister will confirm what instructions were given by the MOD about the administration of vaccines. Are five vaccinations in one day too many? What are we doing to ensure that reservists are monitored for any problems that they may have with Gulf war sickness—whether we believe it exists or not? We should not forget those people from Gulf war one who are still battling so hard to make their points known.
Mr. Paul Tyler: As my hon. Friend knows, I take a close interest in questions relating to Gulf war one and the veterans. Does he accept that while we all welcome the fact that the MOD has been much more proactive with an assessment of possible illness from vaccination and other factors after recent hostilities, that is in itself a recognition that it was inadequately covered after the 1991 conflict?
Mr. Keetch: My hon. Friend has been one of the leaders in the House on that issue. I noticed that the Minister appeared to suggest that it was not a problem to have five vaccinations in one day. If that is the case, I would like to know why the Secretary of State for Defence said:
"it is not sensible to inflict on our forces a large number of inoculations simultaneously".—[Official Report, 20 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 37.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): When I joined the MOD I had five vaccinations on my first day and it did not do me any harm. The same applies to anyone else receiving the normal public health vaccinations. There is a big difference between those and some of the more unusual vaccinations that were given in 1991—in particular, anthrax—which is always given five days apart from other vaccinations. There is nothing wrong with being given a normal package of public health vaccinations in one go, just as all our babies get.
Mr. Keetch: I am sorry that the Minister takes a cavalier attitude to the issue. Perhaps he could explain that to Mr. Tony Barker, a 46-year-old who has been a TA soldier for 26 years.
Dr. Moonie: There was nothing cavalier about pointing out that it is normal clinical practice—as a doctor, I am well aware of that—to give cocktails of vaccinations, and it does no harm at all.
Mr. Keetch: Is the Minister saying that it is right to give cocktails that include anthrax vaccinations? The cocktail of specific vaccinations was given, but the Secretary of State reported to the House that that would not happen—
Dr. Moonie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?
Mr. Keetch: The Minister will have his chance when he winds up. Many of our reservists undoubtedly fell ill as a result of the cocktail of inoculations that they were given, against the advice that the Secretary of State gave to the House.
Dr. Moonie: I would not wish to accuse the hon. Gentleman of misleading the House, but he deliberately failed to hear what I said. I said that anthrax inoculation is given with a five-day separation period from any other inoculation.
Mr. Keetch: I concede that point, but it was widely felt by reservists that the cocktail that they were given was not helpful.
Mr. Kevan Jones: Some 45,000 personnel were deployed in the recent action in Iraq. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned two cases. Is he in danger of exaggerating the extent of the problem? With any type of vaccination, whether for travel to the Gulf or elsewhere, there is a small risk of side effects.
Mr. Keetch: That is true, but the reservists were called up so quickly that they had to have all their injections at once, including anthrax, unlike the regulars who had received their injections over time. For some of the reservists, that was a problem.
Coupled with the problems with kit that forces families reported throughout the war, the over-reliance on TA personnel, combined with the substandard treatment that they often receive, was self-defeating at best. Many of those personnel can quit when they return home, and many are doing so. Does the Minister have any figures on that?
890
There are also many lessons for the Ministry of Defence, and I am sure that the Government will want to address them. We understand that post-operational reports on the Iraq conflict are being compiled and that assessments will be published, as the Minister of State mentioned earlier. When the Under-Secretary winds up, I hope that he will say when they will be published. I am sure that he agrees that it is in the interests of the MOD and of our armed forces that those lessons are made public as soon as possible.
The White Paper anticipated in the autumn is to be welcomed, and I urge the MOD to use the opportunity to address some of the missing links in defence policy that have emerged since the publication of the new chapter. For example, will the White Paper deal with the security threat to the UK in the round? Since the new chapter was published, there have been more questions than answers about the role of the MOD in counter-terrorism and contingency operations. How will the proposed draft legislation on civil contingencies affect the MOD's policy planning in the autumn White Paper?
It is clear that the SDR projections have been abandoned. The White Paper should introduce new projections, or outline how the Government intend to return to the limits of the SDR. In addition, our armed forces deserve clear answers to the immediate requirements that they face in Iraq. They want to know when they are coming home, and when they will go out again. The forces as a whole, and Parliament, have the right to expect a defence policy that sets guidelines, and sticks to them.
I believe that the MOD has performed the difficult task set by the Iraq crisis admirably, but it must be governed by a clear and sustainable policy. The men and women of our armed forces deserve nothing less.
4.11 pm
Tony Worthington: I start by congratulating the armed forces, as every contributor to the debate has done. It has been my privilege to see their contribution in crisis situations in various parts of the world. I am thinking particularly about Sierra Leone, where lots of other troops were involved. That was a mess, which our forces quickly rescued, and it is clear that they have performed very well in Iraq.
I am disturbed by the clear feeling that the war in Iraq has been won. I am struck by the fact that the six day war finished in 1968 but is clearly going strong 35 years later. Whether the recent war in Iraq can be considered a success depends on what we make of the situation there from now on. My remarks will concentrate on the fact that the task of running post-war Iraq has not been handed over to the UN or to civilians. Iraq remains under military control, and we must look at the way in which our forces are deployed.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State made a very good speech that lasted an hour, but it was notable that he made no mention of the US. The debate has made it sound as though the war was a discrete British war, even though we were the junior partner in a coalition. That is something that I want to consider.

891
Britain failed to change a decision by the US. As a result, the UN has largely been excluded from the reconstruction phase. In the US Government, the Pentagon and Donald Rumsfeld won the battle about who was to control the reconstruction phase. That battle was won in February, and the result was announced in Congress, but it was in a sense ignored or denied in this country when the Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance was set up under the retired general, Jay Garner.
That episode was a fiasco. The General Garner phase went very badly wrong, and a civilian, Paul Bremer, was brought in. He immediately reversed much of what Garner had said. For example, the Iraqis thought in May that they would be well on the way to having an Iraqi Government, but we are now in a Pentagon-run reconstruction phase, with a coalition provisional authority in which we are the junior partner. Much of my speech will be concerned with finding out from the Government exactly how the CPA works, and determining what our contribution to it is. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will not be able to answer me in detail today, so I hope that he will write to me. Just how are our armed forces involved in the CPA, which was previously ORHA? That has never been covered in a statement to the House, although, on two occasions, we were promised an explanation.
Bremer's powers in running the CPA are enormous. There are seven directorates for everything that a sovereign state would cover—matters such as education, health, police, religious affairs, oil, agriculture, planning and trade. Bremer has responsibilities similar to those of the House. In addition, an international co-ordinating council has responsibility for liaison with bilateral donors, NGOs and, lastly, the UN.
Bremer's main means of implementing Pentagon policy are soldiers on the ground. For our purposes, and in relation to the debate, that means that our forces in Basra are responsible for implementing his policy. Our weakness is that our obsession with weapons of mass destruction meant that the House did not consider the post-victory situation. We did not consider what we would do with our armed forces after they had swept away the Iraqi army.
When I asked about that, the Prime Minister said that no decisions had yet been taken, but he thought that
"the role of the UN had to be well protected in such a situation".—[Official Report, 25 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 137.]
Again, I asked the Prime Minister about the decision in Washington, announced at the US Foreign Relations Committee, that UN aid organisations and coalition partners would contribute to the reconstruction effort through ORHA and be subject to Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon. The Prime Minister did not acknowledge that those facts had been declared in Washington several weeks earlier. He said:
"we are in intensive discussions…I have no doubt that there will have to be a substantial UN involvement…rather than speculate about what might happen, I assure my hon. Friend that we will declare those plans to people as soon as we have them properly worked out."—[Official Report, 5 March 2003; Vol. 400, c. 818.]
There has never been an explanation of what happened on the ground that reconstruction was to be under the control of the Pentagon. We were assured that
892
the Prime Minister had gained the President's agreement that the UN would have a central or vital role, but that role was never secured and the proposals were never debated in the House.
The implications for our armed forces are considerable. They have to work in a situation to which we have agreed. Strangely, there has been no reference in the debate to the fact that the reconstruction phase started with a fiasco—the looting that the troops seemed unwilling or unable to stop. Buildings and infrastructure were preserved by expert bombing during the war for expert looting during the peace.
Our forces are in an unsatisfactory situation. I do not believe that the Government desire our armed forces to be the lead figures in the reconstruction phase, but that is what is happening. The Select Committee on International Development, of which I am proud to be a member, is taking evidence from non-governmental organisations and others about the situation in Iraq. Evidence taken towards the end of May from one of the major organisations, Care International, about its experiences with ORHA states:
"The Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance has taken upon itself the mantle of coordinating the international response.
This body has no clear mandate for its operation and is staffed by a confusing mixture of military and civilian appointments. Housed in one of Saddam's former palaces, it is operating as if in a bunker, impenetrable to outside contact and with no avenues for dialogue with NGOs and civil society actors. While we have had sight of an organisation chart for staff of ORHA, our staff in Baghdad have found it impossible to make contact with any of them."
Save the Children says that ORHA gave the impression of being in internal turmoil, with little understanding of its role. It was totally predictable that ORHA was not up to the job. That experience has been reported by those in each major, reputable NGO from which we have sought evidence. None of them reports any sign of planning for the post-war period. Those in the military are responsible for everything, but they are finding it difficult to provide what only they can provide—security. Admittedly, the situation is not as serious in the British zone, but surely we should now be handing over to the UN organisations those things that they are experienced at doing.
All that leads to a great many questions about the use of our forces in Iraq. The first relates to their numbers and replacement. As several hon. Members have said, if we were near overstretch some months ago, where are we now? The Minister referred to 20,000 troops having left Iraq now, but he did not say how many were still there and how easy, or difficult, it would be to maintain the strength of our forces there. We will be there for at least a year—that is the commitment; it is written down—but I have met no one who reasonably thinks that our commitment will only last that long.
This is particularly difficult for two reasons. Others are not available to take the place of the British in Iraq. First, for political reasons, many people do not want to be involved in what they saw as our war. Secondly, there is a continuing, severe shortage of quality troops in the world whom one would trust with that extremely difficult policing situation. So I ask the Minister how will the Secretary of State increase or refresh the forces that he has on the ground? They will be very tired by the physical and emotional fatigue that is caused by war.

893
I was struck this week by a fine article by Fergal Keane, who wrote about his experiences with the American forces. In American-controlled towns, he saw
"an army that is afraid of the people it says it wants to protect; an army that looks and often acts as if it has arrived in a spaceship, speaking a different language and praying only for the moment that it can go home. Iraq scared them."
No one had trained those young men for the situation in which they found themselves.
We are said to be better and to do the job better—I believe that to be true—but we are tied to the fact that we are in the coalition provisional authority. I want to know how much freedom our forces in Basra have in that relationship to do things differently. For example, if they decided fully to involve the L N organisations in Basra, could they do so or is there a one-size-fits-all situation throughout Iraq?
Was it a wise decision by Bremer, as the administrator of Iraq, to dismiss the 500,000 soldiers of the Iraqi army and send them all off, with their AK47s, into the community, without any plan for their rehabilitation? Iraq is a country stuffed full of arms anyway. Did Bremer consult us about that? Did we have any say about it? Did we agree to discharge the army? That was not our approach in Sierra Leone, where, very wisely, we set up the most complex, detailed and well-planned system to disarm and rehabilitate soldiers.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman some latitude, but his remarks should now relate more to British armed forces personnel.
Tony Worthington: With all the respect in the world, Madam Deputy Speaker, they do apply to the British armed forces because Iraqi soldiers will be released in Basra. If they are released in Basra, they could be a threat to our soldiers there. We need to consider whether it is possible for our forces in Basra to deal with those discharged army people in a way that makes sense. What ability do we have to operate separately?
Another concern, about which the Under-Secretary must know, is the confusion of roles in Iraq between the civilian and military aspects. A great deal of effort is going into trying to combine two separate elements. Let us consider what UNICEF said in its evidence to the Select Committee. It stated:
"the confusion of roles between the military and humanitarian forces has significantly and negatively impacted on the support and assistance provided to the civilian population in the immediate aftermath of the conflict".
What, therefore, is our stance? Are we seeking military withdrawal and the maximum possible deployment of UN and civilian staff?
Finally, what sign is there that U N Security Council resolution 1483 is beginning to have a beneficial impact? Are there signs that the former OR HA is moving over and allowing the UN bodies to operate effectively? What is our role in that? What are we doing to overcome the American antagonism to the UN and to do what almost everybody in the world recognises must be done: to invite in the UN and restrict the role of our military, and everybody else's in a coalition war, to that for which
894
they are trained and which they are good at? We must not to continue with the situation laid down by the Pentagon whereby the peace will also be run by the armed forces, rather than by those who are better at it.
Mr. Francois: The hon. Gentleman made considerable play of the pressure that the Army is under because of our continuing commitment in Iraq. One of the reasons why it is under such pressure is that great demand exists for British troops, particularly infantry units, in exactly such situations, because, bluntly, they are so good at that kind of work. If the hon. Gentleman agrees with that, as I think he does, does he also agree that, logically, the last thing any Government would want to do in such circumstances would be to reduce the number of infantry units available for such work, bearing it in mind that they are already under tremendous pressure?
Tony Worthington: I think that I said that. I did not say that the last thing we should do is reduce the number of infantry units, but the fact is that highly-skilled infantry men and women, because of the training and tradition in the British Army, have an immense contribution to make. Let us face it: in relation to the Congo, which we were discussing earlier, no one can tell me that our contribution would have been so restricted had we not heavily deployed our forces in other places, overwhelmingly in Iraq.
4.28 pm
Dr. Andrew Murrison: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington). I shall endeavour to keep on the straight and narrow, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to confine my remarks to armed forces personnel. My remarks will be reasonably partisan, as I spent a considerable time as a medical officer in the Royal Navy and am currently a reservist in the Royal Navy Reserve. Clearly, my interest is registered in the appropriate place.
First, I want to talk about the Defence Medical Services, which, as the Under-Secretary will know, are in a truly parlous state. There are historical reasons for that, but the situation is not getting any better. We need 120 anaesthetists, but we have only 23. We have 18 of the 43 general surgeons that we need. Of the 10 vital burns specialists that we need, we have only three. We need 800 nurses, 1,900 more medics and 415 general practitioners.
The Defence Medical Services have been engaged in a number of theatres of operations recently: in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, and more recently in the Gulf. They are an integral part of our defensive capability. However, if we survey the responsibilities of the Under-Secretary and his fellow Ministers, the Defence Medical Services are in the most difficult situation. In the MOD's DMS attitude survey in 2001, 82 per cent. of respondents felt that the DMS was overcommitted, including 94 per cent. of hospital consultants—nearly all of them. Has the Under-Secretary thought of repeating that survey in light of Operation Telic? If he did, the results would be even more salutary. I would be grateful if he addressed that in his concluding remarks.
I am sure that the Minister has been busy over the past six years trying to improve the situation. We must look specifically at the initiatives that have been undertaken.

895
I recall that golden hellos were introduced about nine months ago, and were well, and I suspect expensively, advertised. I looked at whether that initiative had resulted in any of my ex-colleagues returning to the DMS or becoming members for the first time. I found that in February not one recruit was attracted by a golden hello to join the DMS. Earlier this week, I spoke to the British Medical Association, which reckons that 14 have joined. That is laudable, but it is only a pinprick, given the shortfalls that I have identified. It would be superb if the Minister could give us an update on how successful the golden hello scheme has been, and how he intends to develop it.
It is not just about money, however. It is also about morale and esprit de corps. In the past six years, Ministers have been responsible for the institution of the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine, in which I have an interest, as I used to work at the Royal Naval Hospital Haslar, which became the Royal Hospital Haslar but has now closed its doors as a military unit. I was saddened when Haslar ceased to be a military hospital, and was baffled and bewildered at the decision to set up the Centre for Defence Medicine in Birmingham. Our armed forces are scattered throughout the United Kingdom, but they are heavily concentrated in Wiltshire and Hampshire. It would therefore make sense to have a centre for defence medicine, a college of knowledge for the DMS, close to the front line. Men and women join the DMS because they want to be with front-line units. To move them to a place without such units makes no sense.
One thing sticks in my mind as a cause for the reduction in the morale and esprit de corps of the DMS over the past few years—the creation of the Centre for Defence Medicine in Birmingham and the closure of the Royal Hospital Haslar. I was delighted that in April the shadow Defence Secretary said that a Conservative Government would revise the decision on Haslar, which is very good news. I am sure that that single change would do a great deal to improve morale in the DMS and, I very much hope, to improve recruitment and retention.
The siting of the Centre for Defence Medicine in Birmingham, and not somewhere slightly more rational such as Southampton—one of the options considered when the changes were taking place—shows a lack of joined-up government. Despite the advent of foundation hospitals, we still have a command-andcontrol health service. I would not have thought that it was beyond the wit of Health and Defence Secretaries to collaborate on the formation of a centre for defence medicine with a rational location. Southampton was such an option, as it lies in close proximity to Haslar. It would be great if that could be revisited by an incoming Conservative Administration. The only recent example of joined-up government in which the MOD is involved has been Operation Fresco, in which our servicemen and women become the flexible friend of everybody else. It is a great shame that that flexibility does not extend to other Departments and we do not have more evidence of joined-up government that benefits the MOD.
896
I turn briefly, in the time available to me, to the reserve forces. Operation Telic has been a watershed in the deployment of reserve forces. Of course, they have been involved in non-territorial duties before, notably in the Balkans, but it was Operation Telic that brought the reserve forces to public attention. The description "territorial" no longer applies, because they are no longer involved exclusively in the defence of the UK's territorial integrity. Rather, they are an integral arm of the armed forces—an arm of Government, if you will.
The Reserve Forces Act 1996 was the prelude to that. The employment of reservists on the international stage was cemented in the strategic defence review. One assumes that the pattern will continue. It may surprise some hon. Members to hear that reserve forces continue to be mobilised. Many of us think the middle east is all done and dusted, in terms of the conflict there. Last Tuesday, after leaving this place, I spent two hours doing medicals on reservists who had been mobilised. They continue to be mobilised to serve in the Gulf and in support of regulars elsewhere.
Reservist numbers are down by a half on a decade ago, however, despite the expanded role envisaged by the Reserve Forces Act and SDR. Ministers say that recruitment is bullish, but retention, it seems, is not. That represents an inefficient use of manpower. It is all very well recruiting people, but the armed forces must invest heavily in them. We have moved on a long way from the old days when squaddies were recruited one day, and handed a rifle and told to get on with it the next. Our present armed forces are highly skilled and a huge amount of training is needed to bring them up to speed. To lose them at the crucial point where they are just becoming useful to the armed forces is a tragedy, both for them and for the MOD and the public that it serves.
I recently asked a series of questions of the Under-Secretary of State, to which I received very prompt answers. I commend him for that. I was particularly exercised by the number of resignations that we have had from our reserve forces. I asked the Under-Secretary what I thought was a straightforward question about
"how many resignations from the reserve forces there have been since 1 January; and how many there were in each year since 1990."
The hon. Gentleman can be forgiven for not knowing the answer to the first part of my question, but I was surprised, I confess, that he did not have an answer to the second part. The answer that came back was:
"The information requested is not centrally held and could be provided only at disproportionate cost."
I probed the Minister a little more and asked him
"what recent assessment has been made of the reasons for Reserve Forces personnel choosing to resign",
and
"what measures have been taken to reduce the number of resignations from the Reserve Forces."
The response was slightly fuller, but not much. It was:
"Although such information would be held at unit level, there has been no recent centralised assessment of the reasons why Reserve Forces personnel resign."—[Official Report, 21 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 786W.
That is extraordinary. If we are looking at a retention crisis in our forces, one would have thought that Ministers would get a grip on how many—
Dr. Moonie: In case I do not get round to replying to the hon. Gentleman in my winding-up speech, may I say

897
that he is making a very interesting point? Information is often not held centrally, and there are parliamentary rules about whether one can collate it, depending on the cost. I can, however, assure him that I am extremely interested in the matter myself, and I will examine it closely to see whether patterns of resignation from our reserve services have changed, and why, as I am anxious to retain as many reservists as possible.
Dr. Murrison: I am grateful to the Minister for that extremely positive response. I look forward to his sharing with me the information that he gleans. That is good news and I thank him for it. I suspect that his enthusiasm to try and work out why people are leaving and how we might prevent it has been prompted by some clouds on the horizon. A recent survey of Territorial Army personnel who had been sent to the Gulf found that 80 per cent. expected their employers to take a fairly dim view of deployments in the foreseeable future. Crucially, 63 per cent. of the very scarce medical and technical staff said that they were thinking of resigning. That is worrying and it suggests that we may face even more problems in future.
I have already mentioned medics, but I should like to do so again, as they are so crucial. The British Medical Association recently surveyed medical officers in the Gulf. It received 52 replies. Three respondents said that they would quit in respect of deployments of between three or four months, and 12 said that they would probably do so. Those numbers are quite low, but in respect of a six-month deployment, 21 medical officers said that they would quit and 13 said that they would probably do so. That is worrying. I think that the BMA survey was well run and authoritative, and I hope that the Minister will comment on it.
There is certainly widespread discontent among deployed TA medics about the way in which they have been handled. There has also been a fairly high call-up rate among crucial hospital specialists. That clearly has implications for the NHS, but it also has implications for them as a group. I have mentioned their feelings about remaining in the Territorial Army, and the situation will obviously apply disproportionately in terms of those vital hospital specialists who are required to run our field hospitals. Currently, we have the capacity to run only four out of a required 13 such hospitals. I am afraid that the bottom line is that if there are no field hospitals, there will be no military campaigns.
4.41 pm
Dr. Ashok Kumar: Thank you, Mad am Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this debate. I should like to join other hon. Members in congratulating our armed forces on the excellent work that they have done in various campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am one of those who supported our Government on their action in Iraq. I think that it was the right decision, and our armed forces displayed great bravery and achieved the results that were necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) said that we were second partners, but I hope that we were equal partners with the Americans in displaying our bravery in overthrowing Saddam Hussein.
898
This is the first time that I have been involved in a debate on defence matters in this House, so it is a very unusual event for me, although a very important one. I want to congratulate my Government, in a genuine spirit, on their achievement. I know of no previous Government who have made an effort to try to recruit ethnic minorities in the armed forces as this Government have done. I remember that, as a Defence Minister, the current Minister of State, Department of Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), made an immense effort to speak to the ethnic community and raise the issue of young men and women from the Asian community joining the armed forces. He certainly did so in the Sikh community. I am half Sikh, so I was delighted at the effort that he made. I was also delighted earlier to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister state that we had achieved a 6 per cent. increase in ethnic minority recruitment to the armed forces. Great credit is due to the Government for that achievement.
I want to raise issues regarding welfare and to focus on allegations concerning the existence of a culture of bullying and intimidation in today's armed forces, because this issue has alarmed me whenever I have read about it or heard about it on television. The other issue on which I want to focus is support for our armed forces and their dependants and families, which was raised earlier.
Whenever I have spoken to members of the armed forces, they have told me that military service is not simply a job, but a way of life. Living, eating, sleeping and working with colleagues, travelling long distances to the world's trouble spots at short notice, and having every aspect of one's behaviour scrutinised by one's employer, irrespective of whether it is in work, is all part and parcel of life in the armed forces. Many regulars are relatively young men and women who are completely in the power of their superior officers, and there is a duty of care on the Army and other services to ensure that staff who adhere to basic rules receive basic protection and care. Many fine men and women devote their lives to the service of their country, and it can only be a good thing for them to pass on their skills and knowledge to colleagues.
Some unfortunates, however, find themselves subject to bullying from their peers or superiors. Government figures show that over the past eight years, there have been numerous deaths in British Army barracks, but campaigners claim that little or no action has been taken and no proper records have been kept.
Mr. Francois: The hon. Gentleman touches on a serious subject. Will he acknowledge that over the past few years, all the forces, particularly the Army, have put a great deal of effort into combating bullying? I see that the Minister is nodding. The Army takes the issue very seriously; will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that a great deal of effort has gone into addressing it?
Dr. Kumar: I agree that a lot of effort has been made, but I want to put my concerns on the record. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that if one individual is bullied, that is one too many.

899
Since 1994, nearly 100 members of the armed forces have been killed through firearms incidents and a further 156 have committed suicide.
Patrick Mercer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Kumar: I want to make progress to enable the hon. Gentleman to contribute to the debate, but I shall give way.
Patrick Mercer: I shall be very quick. Without wishing for one moment to score points, has the hon. Gentleman visited a field force unit; has he felt the atmosphere in a good unit; arid has he understood that bad news will always make the newspapers?
Dr. Kumar: I am expressing a point of concern, not trying to demean anyone. As I said, I speak in praise of the armed forces. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that I am addressing the issue in that spirit. I am taking part in a debate of this nature for the first time to express my concern.
In 2000, 192 Army court martial cases involved forms of violent crime and 34 involved forms of sexual crime. Following a series of disturbing allegations concerning the suspicious deaths of four young soldiers at the Royal Logistics Corps base in Surrey, there are growing calls for an independent inquiry into bullying in the Army. Earlier this month, it was reported that relatives of soldiers at Catterick garrison in north Yorkshire, just down the road from my constituency, claim that there is a culture of fear spanning almost 20 years. It has been alleged that a soldier died during a forced march, and a former private has claimed that in 1985 he was gang-raped at nearby Strensall barracks in York. An investigation was recently announced into the suicide of 18-year-old Private Paul Cochrane, who shot himself at Drumadd barracks in Northern Ireland in 2001. It may be helpful to hon. Members if I say that although I do not want to overstate the issue of bullying in the armed forces, it is essential that the Government look at it more closely as a priority, and I raise it in that spirit.
I turn to welfare issues. There are several hurdles between where we are now and the goal of modern and effectively run armed forces. Hon. Members with bases and barracks in their constituencies will recognise the need to forge better links between forces staff and local residents. In addition to the obvious benefits, that can help to improve the closeted, insular and occasionally suffocating atmosphere that can build up on bases with limited links with the outside world. I have already spent some time discussing bullying, and I often wonder whether a decent counselling service provided by impartial external professionals would go some way towards identifying problems before they develop into tragedies such as those witnessed at Deepcut. I would be especially interested in the Minister's comments on that.
Another crucial piece in the welfare puzzle is the assistance and support for those leaving the armed forces. There is much anecdotal evidence to support the view that some people find it difficult to assimilate back into society after serving in the armed forces. Some experience difficulties in finding work and others develop drink and drug problems. Still others, whose problems have been highlighted in recent high profile
900
cases of those suffering from Gulf war syndrome, develop medical complaints linked to their time in service, as the Minister acknowledged earlier.
It would be easy to write off individual cases as exceptions that prove the rule, but it lessens the general public's respect for the military every time they hear of a war veteran who has received no medical assistance or a widow who has been asked to pay back her dead husband's salary.
Family needs must also be borne in mind. Adequate educational and recreational facilities for staff with families not only increase their sense of well-being but show that the needs of their loved ones are important. That is an essential element of the equation when one considers that those men and women willingly put their lives on the line to defend this country. Priority must be given to the welfare and maintenance of the armed services in the field, and part of that is the knowledge that their families back home are being cared for.
Although armed services organisations such as the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association—SSAFA—do a good job, we must also consider families who live off base and the families of reservists and those serving with the Territorial Army. Many of them feel that they are outside the loop.
I want briefly to consider reservists. One incident goes some way towards highlighting the way in which servicemen and women, be they regulars or reservists, are often disregarded. I was approached by the concerned spouse of a Territorial Army reservist. At the last count, nearly 300 Territorial Army reservists from the north-east had been called up for service in Iraq. I am sure that the anxieties that the wife of one infantryman expressed to me are not unique. The woman's husband had been mobilised and was being deployed somewhere as part of the preparations for military action against Iraq. Neither he nor his fellow reservists were given full information about the financial implications of any possible deployment until they were called up. In two weeks, they were mobilised and dispatched on active duty.
Although I appreciate that it is not for the Army to determine whether individuals can afford to serve their country or join the TA, such information should be clear at the time of recruitment. The couple to whom I refer found themselves losing out financially as a direct result of the husband's willingness to serve his country. Before 1996, reservists had access to additional financial assistance by virtue of their status as reservists rather than having to apply for hardship funds. I would welcome the Minister's comments on a position that requires reservists' families to provide receipts for domestic outgoings to access emergency financial assistance. That is especially difficult at a time when their loved ones have departed for armed conflict and they may be in some distress.
I am especially worried to learn that reservists and their families are concerned about the insurance cover provided by the MOD-approved company responsible for PAX, which is the cover available to regulars and RPAX—the cover available to reservists. I understand that reservists inquiring about insurance cover were regularly advised that the appropriate information would be provided at the mobilisation centre. On arrival at the centre, they were made aware that the scheme was

901
privately run and that the company's paperwork contained an exclusion clause that rendered the cover void if deployment occurred within 30 days of cover being taken out.
After making inquiries, I was informed that the MOD aims for there to be a minimum period of 16 days between a reservist receiving a call-up notice and having to report to the mobilisation centre. However, that is not always possible, and the time period can be much shorter. While I am told that the period of time between reporting and deployment is not a matter on which the Ministry comments publicly, I have anecdotal evidence that it can be as short as nine days. There are concerns that current PAX and RPAX schemes due to expire at the end of this month will be replaced by a new scheme or schemes which are expected to be either more expensive or less generous.
In January this year, The Times newspaper carried articles that were critical of mainstream insurance companies which were refusing to take on new policies for service personnel. In mid-February, Forces Safeguard announced new terms for the continued provision of war cover. When new policies are taken out, policyholders will have to choose whether to take out war cover. If they do, a 100 per cent. premium loading will apply, and benefits for war claims will be scaled back to 25 per cent. of the amount that would be paid in other circumstances.
I have written to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), this year, and received a detailed reply at the end of March. I thank him for that, but I remain concerned that the MOD line on this issue appears to be far too relaxed. Although insurance is recommended, the MOD is unable or unwilling to do anything other than point people towards commercial organisations that have nothing to gain from offering decent cover to members of the armed forces, as illustrated by Forces Safeguard. When asked in the same letter about the scheme to replace the existing insurance provision for regulars and reservists at the end of the current PAX and RPAX contracts, the Minister replied:
"In the current insurance climate, replicating existing benefits is unlikely and some combination of increased premiums and decreased benefits appears likely. Any changes will apply to all scheme members, both new and existing, and will be promulgated to Service personnel as soon as they are available."
I am sure that hon. Members will be as interested as I am in how serving troops will be detrimentally affected by such renegotiated contracts.
The points that I have raised with the Minister today are matters of genuine concern: intimidation, violence and bullying. The Army itself has to demonstrate that the terrible practice of bullying will not be tolerated and that all those involved in it will be kicked out and made an example of. I also hope that the Minister will take on board my concerns about welfare matters in the spirit in which I raised them, because they are important to us. After all, everyone else who has spoken in this debate has championed our armed forces.
4.59 pm
Patrick Mercer: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar). His points about PAX were extremely well made and apposite.
In the two years during which I have been in the House of Commons, I have never heard the armed forces spoken of here except in the most glowing terms. Is it not a disgrace that, on a Thursday afternoon, so few of us can be here to fight their corner?
I pay tribute to the two services that do not seem to have had much of a crack of the whip in the Gulf, as far as I can see. We must remember, as my gallant colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) pointed out, that the Royal Navy played an extremely important part in the Gulf conflict. Although its role was clearly minor, that was no fault of the Navy. And without the Royal Air Force, the Gulf campaign simply could not have been won. Air supremacy was crucial and ground operations could not have continued without the dedication of the Air Force, which had been at war not just during the Gulf campaign itself, but for the 12 years before that.
I want to go on record as expressing my undying admiration for those two services, which are both equipment intensive. The Army is manpower intensive. At the end of every conflict, be it the last Gulf war or the Balkans campaigns, a series of cuts are introduced on the armed forces, probably on the pretext of there being some peace dividend. I refer first to "Options for Change", which, as a serving officer at the time, I found extraordinarily hard to admire. Secondly, I refer to the strategic defence review, which got the personnel bills so badly wrong that 3,000 were added back to the figure for cuts, although this Government have never met that.
Without doubt, the White Paper that is coming up in the autumn will cut the forces again, yet look at what has happened even in the brief period since the end of the Gulf war. There have been two operational deployments. One was a stealthy deployment of a complete company of the 2nd Battalion, the Royal Anglian Regiment, which more than doubled the combat power of British troops in Afghanistan—what price now the fingers being stuck in the mangle? The other involved sappers going out to the Congo. Neither was particularly technical. Both depend on manpower. The crucial point, which I shall make throughout my speech, is that if we ignore manpower—if we go for equipment rather than manpower and for fire rather than manoeuvre—we will get it wrong yet again.
Before we look down the list of what the Army believes is going to happen to it, I shall, if I may, pay a quick tribute to the Queen's Royal Lancers. The regiment is associated with Nottinghamshire and it recruits in my constituency. It fought in the Gulf and did a good job. We are told, however, that the six main battle tank regiments are about to lose a squadron each. It is not widely known, but those six regiments do not have enough tanks to go round anyway. Only two have enough to achieve full manning all the time.
It looks as though we shall lose about 400 Royal Armoured Corps soldiers, so I say this to the Minister: let us not get it wrong with our armoured soldiers. The battle for Basra depended heavily on Royal Armoured Corps troops. If we lose 400 trained, motivated, battle-

903
hardened Royal Armoured Corps soldiers, we will regret it. The four armoured reconnaissance regiments need their fourth squadrons back. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that that is where those 400 sabres ought to go.
Mr. Keetch: The hon. Gentleman knows something that I suspect a lot of people do not appreciate: the Royal Armoured Corps not only provides excellent equipment—the Challenger 2 was undoubtedly a success story in this campaign—but the soldiers can dismount from their tanks or AS 90s with weapons to act as infantry in support of infantry operations, particularly in peacekeeping roles. Armoured soldiers and armoured regiments, even light reconnaissance regiments, can multi-role in a combat environment, which normal infantry often cannot.
Patrick Mercer: That is an extraordinarily good point, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is quite right. The Royal Armoured Corps is immensely flexible and, with the advent of Apache attack aircraft, I have no doubt that the Royal Armoured Corps soldier will have to become even more flexible.
Let me now turn to the problem in the infantry. Whatever Ministers say—whatever Labour Members say—it is an established fact, or at least an established rumour, that two battalions will be scrapped. It seems that 600 posts will be saved in the infantry. This is to happen before any announcement in the shape of a White Paper. Forty battalions will be reduced to 38.
There is no doubt that the regiments that will be looked at most closely are those with second battalions. I suggest that if disbandments prove necessary, the Minister should look closely at regiments that cannot or will not recruit. Let me also tell him that we need foot soldiers above and beyond anything else. Forty battalions are stretched to the limit; 38 will find it impossible to operate.
This is all predicated on what is happening in Northern Ireland. The idea is to close down over the next two years and allow largely infantry formations to become available for disbandment. I plead with the Minister to consider the lessons of history. Every time this has happened before, we have immediately needed our manpower, or else we have ended up stretching the serving manpower to a point approaching breaking point.
I have no time to give examples, but the Minister knows them as well as I do. Regiments are sent to Northern Ireland apparently for six months, and then told while they are there that they must stay for eight months and must lose their Christmas holidays and holiday deposits—and of course there are all the ramifications involving families, girlfriends and other loved ones. That is simply not acceptable. It is the tangible face of overstretch.
I was interested in what the Secretary of State said about the Royal Irish Regiment. He said that it would riot be disbanded. He is right, but the regiment has four battalions. It does not take the brains of an archbishop to work out what will happen if the garrison in Northern Ireland is reduced to 5,000, which is the aspiration, and a regular brigade is left there. What price the three
904
battalions of the home service force of the Royal Irish Regiment? Let me borrow a phrase from the Secretary of State. I simply do not accept that the three battalions of home service soldiers are safe. They are not: I challenge the Government to prove the contrary.
My next point involves a dreadful old saw of mine. Yesterday, in the Select Committee on Defence, we heard from the Chief of Defence Staff that recruiting was going in the right direction, and we heard the same from the Minister today. We have heard that there are more people in the Army now than there were a year ago. I am sure that that is true, but let us look at the reality. The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders are 50 men below strength, and the Highlanders five below strength. As the Highlanders are brought up to strength by a company of 110 Gurkhas, they are actually 115 below strength. The King's Own Scottish Borderers are 35 below strength, and the Royal Highland Fusiliers 80 below strength. Most telling of all, two of the regiments that were warned for operations in the Gulf, the Black Watch and the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, are below strength by 100 and 95 respectively. If they had suffered that number of casualties on operations, they would no longer have been combat effective.
I do not accept the Government's excuse on recruitment. I do not accept the Ministry of Defence's assurance that things are going in the right direction. These units are in a parlous state. Meanwhile, other units that are recruiting well are not allowed to bring their recruits in to train. I made that point earlier, so I will not labour it.
Let me return to the Minister's earlier reply about a blockage in the training system. We brought the problem to the Government's attention last year, and it was apparently solved. Now constituents of mine who want to join their county regiments are told that they cannot. It does not add up. I would love an explanation, because I have laboured under a complete lack of comprehension of the problem for several years. If the Minister can explain it, he is a better man than I am, but I do not suppose he needs to be told that.
Mr. Francois: For all the reasons that my hon. Friend mentioned, which I entirely agree with, there is no logic in reducing the number of infantry battalions, but if for some bizarre reason the Government were to seek do to that, it would be even more perverse to try to reduce those battalions, such as the Royal Anglian Regiment, that have an excellent record of recruitment and retention. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Patrick Mercer: I am grateful for that intervention. My mother's family served in the Royal Lincolnshire Regiment. My constituency abuts Lincolnshire. The loss of any battalion from the Army would be a disgrace. The loss of the Royal Anglian Regiment, swept away by a bureaucrat's pen after 300 years' dedication to the Crown, would appal me.
I am grateful for the House's forbearance. The Government know that they will try to cut the Army. The Minister may deny it but we have quotes, which we have already used today, from the MOD:
"There may well be units to be disbanded, but it's not been finalised."

905
Those quotes are perfectly open. The Royal Armoured Corps, the infantry and to a lesser extent the artillery are already being told what numbers to start saving. It is an open secret. It is a mistake to lose manpower.
The Minister said earlier that we must not be afraid to change. He is absolutely right. We must embrace change. We must adapt. We must be modern and forward thinking with the armed forces. We must expand them, not reduce them.
5.11 pm
Mr. Bill Wiggin: I pay tribute to HMS Ledbury, which is named after the town in my constituency and did such a tremendous job in the Gulf clearing mines; to the light infantry, who also served in the Gulf; and to the special forces. It is a privilege to follow my gallant and hon. Friend Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer). I wish that the Government would listen to every word he says and follow his advice, but tragically I do not think they will.
Twenty years ago, when I passed my Regular Commissions Board exam, it was explained to me that the reason why officer training was so long and difficult was that to young officers was entrusted the British Army's most precious possession—in the case of a young platoon commander, the lives of 35 of the finest soldiers in the world bar none.
It is important that we remember that, because our armed services cannot say no. They cannot go on strike if they do not like being firemen. They have no choice. Probably the most tragic research that was thrown up before I put in to speak in the debate concerned the number of young men and women going absent without leave. That not only blemishes their reputation but reflects badly on a Government who put them in the position where they cannot bear it anymore and have to make a run for it.
The shortfall against the current trained requirement of the armed forces is 6,510. That sounds like a big number. There has been a reduction in the requirement of about 4,110 but it is difficult for Ministers in Whitehall to realise what that means to the men on the ground, whether they be training in a drill hall or on exercise. I had a troop of three armoured cars based in Croydon and only five troopers in that troop, which was enough for about one and a half armoured cars.
That was damaging to our ability to train. It meant that most of the time was spent doing maintenance to ensure that the three armoured cars were serviceable. It was not much fun for the soldiers or for me. We all suffered from being under strength, short of man hours and of the highly qualified trained soldiers who we needed. The Government have a duty to ensure that there are enough soldiers, sailors and airmen to enable those who are currently employed to be trained properly and to enjoy their jobs, as every person should be able to.
I hope that the Government will also look carefully at pay, and at the council tax that service people are required to pay when serving abroad. It is tempting to allow the Treasury to steer our defence commitments, but it was hard to look the fire brigade strikers and
906
protesters in the eye in the knowledge that the soldiers covering for them were paid half as much as those on the picket line. We must seriously reconsider how we value our armed forces. These are people who cannot say no.
The recent court case about Gulf war syndrome has caused nothing but anguish to those who believe that they may be suffering from it and to their families. I understand why the Government do not recognise it, but I rather feel that it reflects more sadly on us than on those poor people who are suffering.
We also need to think about the accommodation that armed forces personnel live in. If 9 per cent. of it is so bad that the Ministry cannot charge rent, and charges only for utilities, there is clearly a great deal of room for improvement.
I know that any good Minister would want to address those issues, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will. The saddest statistic of all concerns Territorial Army reservists. In my short military career, I also had the privilege of being the platoon commander in Holyhead and in Caernarfon, and of my 35 soldiers at least seven had the surname Jones, so we had to use their numbers as well. They were fantastic people, and I cannot think of a happier time in my life than when I was serving with them, even though, because I do not speak fluent Welsh myself, they had the upper hand in that they could have pulled the wool over my eyes had they wanted to.
In a recent survey of TA personnel sent to the Gulf, 80 per cent. said that they did not expect their employer to support any future deployment; 63 per cent. of medical and technical staff said that they were thinking of resigning from the TA; 73 per cent. said that the NHS would lose vital skills because of the deployment; and 39 per cent. were worried about the effect on their job security. If that is how this Government are leaving the armed forces, there is a great distance to go.
5.17 pm
Mr. Mark Francois: I would like to make a few brief points as someone who served during the cold war as a Territorial Army officer in what was then the fifth battalion of the Royal Anglian Regiment. I declare my interest, as it were.
The problem of overstretch has been touched on many times today, and we are all aware of it. There has also been much discussion about recruitment and a little about retention. I repeat the point that I have made in previous defence debates, that retention is as important as recruitment, because the net figure, the difference between inflow and outflow, is crucial in determining how many boots are ultimately available on the ground—to use the buzz phrase. It is one thing to talk about how good we can be at recruiting, but the acid test is how good the Army is at retaining.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) set out clearly the rumour circulating in the Army that there are proposals for a reduction in the number of regular infantry battalions. Nothing is set in concrete, but it would appear that there is at least a suggestion that this might come to pass. With all the pressure that exists on the tour plot, and all the demands made on our regular Army, and in particular the infantry battalions—Iraq is a classic example—there can be no logic whatever in seeking to reduce the number that would be available for service around the

907
globe. The demand is tremendous: even earlier today we had a statement that a limited number of troops were being deployed to the Congo, and for all we know that military commitment could grow in time. So there is an example of how our armed forces continue to be in great demand around the world, even today. That being so, there is surely no logic whatsoever in reducing the number of regular infantry units available for deployment, whatever the cap badge or battalion involved.
I want to refer very briefly to what happened earlier when I attempted to intervene on the Minister of State. I was simply trying to get him to clarify something that he said in response to an earlier intervention by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell). The Minister began by saying that there are no plans to abolish the Royal Anglian Regiment, and I am clearly delighted about that. However, when the hon. Gentleman pressed the Minister further, asking whether there were any plans to abolish the second battalion, I thought I heard the Minister say that there are no plans to abolish the Royal Anglian battalions; in other words, he seemed to answer in the plural. However, his voice fell away slightly, and I was not sure whether Hansard picked that up. I was therefore trying to intervene to get the Minister to clarify whether he had answered in the plural, rather than the singular. I hope that that assists the Under-Secretary who is present, and that he understands why I was trying to intervene.
We do not want to lose any regular units; we do not want to play one cap badge off against another. But as someone who served in the Royal Anglians, I hope that it is fair for me to point out that, at a time when the Army is having difficulty in retaining people, the Royal Anglians' two regular battalions have an excellent record not just in recruiting soldiers, but in retaining them in service. So by any statistical or meritocratic comparison, both of those battalions have done very well in facing a problem that some other regiments have found particularly challenging. On any merit-based criterion, they should not suffer if any of these pressures come to pass. But I reiterate: we do not want to lose any regular battalions of any cap badge.
I end by urging the Under-Secretary to understand that the Royal Anglian Regiment is regarded with great affection within East Anglia. I very much hope that the proposal simply fades away, and that the suggestion does not get really serious. But it is only fair to tell him in all sincerity that if the proposal becomes a reality and one of our two regular battalions appears to be seriously under threat, it is very likely that Ministers will face considerable anger in East Anglia. I say that without any side or spin, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will accept it in the spirit in which it is offered. I now conclude to make way for the Front-Bench spokesmen.
5.22 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: As has become customary in these debates, we have had some extremely well-informed contributions, and some very interesting observations from Members on both sides of the House. I am bound to say, however, that it has been demonstrated beyond doubt that behind me is a very large reservoir of experienced military hands, who bring a great deal of valuable information and military experience to the House, at a time when so few of us have such experience.
908
I am sorry that the Minister of State, who pointed out that he is detained on other duties, was unable to remain with us. I am told that he has not beaten a retreat from the House but is actually beating the retreat on Horseguards Parade. So he is fulfilling his ministerial duties over there, and has beaten a retreat neither from the Government nor the House—as yet.
I want to join all those who have congratulated our armed forces on the magnificence of their operations in Iraq; they have truly made this nation proud of what they have achieved in our name. Members were also right to refer to the contribution made by their families. This House has been keen to recognise the role that the families played in supporting their loved ones who were out there. Speaking of my own constituency and the Aldershot garrison, I should like to pay tribute to the garrison commander, Colonel Stephen Oxlade, and his team; I saw what they were doing to support the families at home. I should also like to thank the Prime Minister and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales for coming to Aldershot, as well as to other garrison towns throughout the country, to demonstrate their support for the families.
Reports have demonstrated that much of the equipment deployed in Iraq worked extremely well—mention has been made of Storm Shadow, the AS 90 and Challenger 2—which is extremely encouraging. I suspect that some of that success may have been due to cannibalisation, and that there was frantic making up of kit that was cannibalised in order to support the front line.
It is important to recognise, as the nation has done, the difference between how UK forces operated in Basra and how US forces operated in Baghdad. I make no criticism of the US: Baghdad was considerably more difficult. However, what was clearly demonstrated was the capacity of our armed forces to switch, almost overnight, from ferocious, high-intensity war fighting to winning the hearts and minds of the local population. That is greatly to the credit of our armed forces.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) reminded us that the campaign was not conducted without loss of life. I am sure that the whole House pays tribute to families who have lost loved ones in this cause. We thank them for providing men and women who were prepared to serve their country and make the final sacrifice. My hon. Friend also mentioned the value of the cadet forces. As president of the Aldershot Air Training Corps, I am bound to agree that they serve a great function in our country. My hon. Friend was absolutely right about that.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) was right to remind us that the war is not yet finished, in the sense that the military victory may have been secured, but the ultimate objective of restoring peace, order and prosperity to Iraq has not. We still have a long way to go in that respect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) referred to the performance of the Royal Air Force. The RAF contributed 7.5 per cent. of the missions flown by the coalition forces in inhospitable fighting conditions, and I pay tribute to our pilots and those who supported them on the ground for performing so well and to such great effect. We should

909
also recall that as well as serving in the recent campaign, they have for the past 12 years policed the no-fly zones, putting themselves in harm's way for 365 days a year.
The Minister was fair in recognising that the success of the campaign should not be allowed to obscure any shortcomings revealed in the war and the fundamental personnel issues that arise from overstretch. There is a sense in some quarters that we actually got away with it. To some extent, that is right. Nevertheless, our armed forces secured the objective. I spoke to a senior officer earlier this week, who said that there is always a risk of coming second—and when that happens, it will be a time of great tribulation for the nation. We must not take our armed forces for granted.
Many have warned the Government, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) at the outset, that their policy of "just in time" could become "just too late". Air Marshal Burridge made that point yesterday when he referred to problems with boots and flak jackets. Clearly, asset-tracking has been a problem: kit has been prepared and exported from the UK, but failed to reach its destination at the front. The Ministry of Defence must pay close attention to that.
The International Criminal Court is an issue now coming to the fore. Will the Minister tell us the Government's view of attempts to haul those responsible for the conduct of the campaign before the ICC? General Tommy Franks is exempt, because the US has not signed up. There is no such luck for Admiral Boyce who was Chief of the Defence Staff when the campaign was under way—[Interruption.] The Minister rumbles in his traditional fashion, but that is a serious point. Many reports suggest that it could happen, and many learned voices in the United Kingdom have given their view that the war was illegal. It is important that the House and the public should know the Government's view of the possible intervention of the ICC in that respect.
Much mention has been made of overstretch and I shall not neglect the issue. Since the Government took office in 1997, it seems as if our armed forces have been permanently preparing for, on, or recovering from, operations. There have been three major conflicts—the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq—and countless minor ones in Africa, East Timor, the middle east, the Balkans and, as we have heard today, now the Congo. Despite the heavy demand on our forces, the statistics show a substantial cut in the trained strength of our armed forces since 1997. The reduction amounts to nearly 9,000 and to try to camouflage those cuts, the Government have fiddled the requirements, which— despite their frenetic military activity—they have reduced since 1997 by no fewer than 10,500. If reports are to be believed, they are threatening to reduce those figures still further, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newark pointed out.
Three years ago, the then Minister for the armed forces assured the then shadow Minister—now my noble Friend Lord King of Bridgwater—that the Army's manning target would be achieved by 2005, which was a delay of 12 months on the previous target date. The manning figure has risen by fewer than 1,800
910
since then. At that rate of increase, today's shortfall of nearly 5,000 will not be made good by 2005, but by 2010. The Government must seriously address that issue.
The practical effect was that we did not have enough troops to cover for the firemen and for the possible conflict in Iraq. It is just as well that the firefighters did not strike during that conflict, because it is questionable whether we had enough cover. Servicemen and women certainly felt much resentment that they were called on to cover firefighters, when that was not what they had been trained to do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newark said that the tangible face of overstretch was seen in the cancellation of post-operational tour leave. I can vouch for that. The Welsh Guards in Aldershot spent six months in Bosnia, came back to Aldershot and were told that they had to go on Operation Fresco to cover for the firefighters. They were livid. It was a breach of the contract that the MOD has with our armed forces to require them to do that, and it was a manifestation of overstretch.
Specialist arms are also being called on. For example, the Royal Engineers will be dispatched to the Congo. They have been called on frequently to do tours, almost back-to-back, and are almost permanently deployed. That is fine, and great fun, for the young men, but for the not quite so young men, with family responsibilities, it is much more difficult.
What is the score on fast-jet pilots? Do we have enough? We had a shortfall and the Government had to introduce special measures to attract fast-jet pilots into the Royal Air Force. As recently as last year, a survey—published in February this year—said that 88 per cent. of officers and airmen believe that overstretch is causing serious problems for the RAF as a whole. That is what the services believe about the situation that they face. Overstretch is a serious problem and the Government must do something about it. The real issue is that they are not prepared to maintain the critical mass necessary to conduct all the operations on which they wish to embark.
The Government have promised to produce their definitive study of the pension issue before the summer recess. As I recall, it was promised before last year's summer recess, but it still has not arrived. The review was intended to be cost-neutral, but new benefits will be introduced for certain beneficiaries—for example, unmarried partners—which will mean that core benefits for the majority will be worse than before. Is that a fair reward for people who are more stretched and overcommitted than ever before? The Government cannot be allowed to get away with giving second-rate benefits to our armed forces at a time when they are calling on them to do so much for our country.
Much has been made in the debate of the question of reservists. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) was right to say that reservists were being relied on increasingly by the Government to make up shortfalls in the regulars. My hon.—and indeed gallant—Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) made an extremely impressive speech. If Ministers were unable to absorb it all as he made it, I recommend that they read it, as my hon. Friend dealt with the real difficulties facing our Defence Medical Services. The chairman of the British Medical Association warned in January that there might not be enough medical services to cope with

911
a campaign in Iraq. As it happens, it did not turn out that way, but that was a matter of good fortune, as we did not suffer the number of casualties that many people expected. However, if we were to embark on a conflict with casualty figures that turned out higher, would we have the medical staff to support our armed forces in the field?
There is an impression that it is the regulars who are coming home. Frimley Park hospital, just outside my constituency, is fully manned, but it is the reservists who are being kept out in Iraq. I have written to the Minister about a dentist who runs a practice with his wife in the north-west of England. He has been told that he will be out there for eight and a half months, and the Minister has put as much in writing for me. It is intolerable that reservists should be put upon in that way. It is therefore not surprising that statistics such as those supplied by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) are coming forth.
I turn now to veterans, as it is important for us to bear in mind those who will be retiring from the services, as well as those who are serving today. We are not doing enough for the veterans. I was privileged to travel to the Falkland Islands last year with Rick Jolly, the surgeon who organised that life-saving red and green machine at Ajax bay. I travelled with 200 veterans. A Labour Member was supposed to accompany us, but he had to stay behind and do duty as hostage at Buckingham palace for the state opening of Parliament and was unable to come. It was a very moving experience to be with so many people who are genuine heroes of our country, and to stand on Mount Longdon with three of my constituents. One of them had no throat, another had lost a leg, and the third had received the Distinguished Conduct medal for evacuating about 30 wounded from the mountain. That really brings home what our armed forces have achieved, and the heroism that they have displayed, in fighting for our country.
However, what came across most clearly was that those men could not talk even to their wives about their experiences. The nation has to recognise the debt that it owes to those people. Today's armed forces form a very small section of society. After world war two, troops returned home from the battle front to communities that understood the nature and horror of war. Indeed, people in the east end of London and in Liverpool and Coventry had experienced it, yet the rest of us carry on today as normal—going to the pub, watching football, and so on.
We must recognise that there are very serious problems. For example, it is suggested that something like 25 per cent. of London's homeless people are ex-servicemen. I understand too that the number of suicides among veterans of the first Gulf war is five times the number of casualties sustained in the campaign itself. That is the magnitude of the difficulties that we face.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) made a good speech, much of which I agreed with. He drew attention to the existence of SSAFA and to the work of the Royal British Legion. Last Friday, I visited an excellent organisation called Combat Stress, about which I want to tell the House. It is a charitable organisation, half of whose funds are derived from fundraising activities, which sees something like 700 cases a year. Its residential
912
accommodation provides 82 beds, and it looks after people who are the victims of war, injured not in limb but in mind. Outwardly, they look as though there is nothing wrong with them, but they are every bit as damaged as those without a leg, an arm or an eye. The charity tells me that there should be much closer cooperation between in-service treatment and veterans' organisations and, especially, that we need to care for such people outside the traditional centres of care in the national health service.
I suspect that the Treasury and some civil servants at the Ministry of Defence do not accept that servicemen are different and that NHS treatment is not appropriate. Those men and women should be treated among their peers—the only people who can fully understand the difficulties that they face and the traumas that they have experienced. I know that the Under-Secretary is trying to do something on that front, and I welcome what he is doing for troops returning home. That is good news. Will he look into the work of Combat Stress and give the organisation a fair wind and some financial support? I resent bitterly the fact that £200 million is being wasted on the Saville inquiry into events that took place 33 years ago, yet men and women who have served this country, who have put their lives on the line for this country and who are suffering in mind now, do not receive the attention that they deserve.
In conclusion, the fundamental problem with the Government's defence policy is that, whatever their rhetoric, they fail to appreciate the real value of their largest resource—the people. Her Majesty's armed forces are not an organisation to which one can apply the mechanisms and tests appropriate to industry. They are a unique organisation whose remarkable success is founded on a set of enduring values, which are not widely replicated elsewhere in today's society. If the Government and the people of this country want to continue to take pride in the success of our armed forces on the battlefield, they must will the means to secure the continuation of that success. That means maintaining force levels sufficient to address the threat to the UK and our wider interests around the world; recognising that reserves are really reserves and not semi-permanent stand-ins because there are not enough regulars; recognising that the frequency of operations is seriously damaging the training cycle; amending the just-in-time policy so that there is sufficient equipment, fit for purpose, to give confidence to our troops; accepting that transferring duties to the private sector has its limits; and, finally, accepting that those who have been injured, whether in mind or body, in the service of our country deserve the best treatment that the world's fourth-largest economic power can provide.
5.42 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): It falls to me to reply to this debate on the important topic of armed forces personnel, although, as is usual with defence debates, it has ranged fairly widely around that subject. I am genuinely grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who contributed and who turned up. I do not know the reason for the absences on the Opposition Benches—presumably, on the Government Benches, it is because my hon. Friends are sitting by their phones—[Laughter.] I am sorry—that was an in-joke.

913
I will do my best in the time available, which is rather longer than I normally get at the end of such debates, to respond to as many as possible of the detailed points that have been raised. I apologise if I miss any significant points; I assure hon. Members that no slight is intended. I shall write separately to any hon. Member whose points I miss—the parliamentary branch of the MOD will make sure of that, even if I should forget.
Before I respond, I want to touch on three issues. First, I echo the tribute that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and others paid to our armed forces in their speeches. The men and women of our armed forces and the civilians who support their endeavours are second to none. Their dedication, courage and determination in the face of uncertainty, separation from their families and, sometimes, extreme danger have been thoroughly tested. They have risen to and surmounted every challenge and, in doing so, have conducted themselves with genuine distinction.
I would like to take a moment to reflect on those who, tragically, did not come home, as has already been mentioned. We will not forget their sacrifice, and nor will we forget those whom they have left behind.
The Ministry of Defence and the three services take very seriously their responsibilities to the families of service personnel deployed on operations, and particularly to the families of those who are killed or injured in the course of their duties. The introduction of a formal repatriation ceremony at RAF Brize Norton for servicemen who died during Operation Telic served to recognise publicly the debt that we owe them. More importantly, bereaved families have been looked after by dedicated staff who have sought to deal sensitively and tactfully with families at a time of immense grief and considerable loss.
I confess that one or two things were not done either as well or as sensitively as I might have wished. In saying that, I wish not to detract in any way from the sterling efforts of those who have been supporting our families, but only to highlight our determination to do better in future. For that reason, we will look right across the board to see what improvements we can make, with particular emphasis on the ease of access by the families to the advice and information that they most need at the most appropriate time.
I should also highlight a change that we have made. In response to immediate concerns about housing, bereaved families occupying service accommodation may now stay for as long as they need to determine their long-term housing needs, and I hope that, like me, the House welcomes that move. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
I also wish to allay any concern about the financial package offered to the dependants of those killed in the service of their country. While no amount of money can replace a loved one, I should correct any suggestion that the compensation and pension arrangements are in any way inadequate. The armed forces pension scheme offers enhanced pensions to the widows and dependent children of personnel who die as a result of service. Those benefits are supplemented by the payment of war widow's and children's pensions.
914
Recent events have shown how essential it is that we make proper provision for the dependants of those who die in the service of their country. To that end, we decided before the conflict that we should extend benefits, on an ex gratia basis, to cover unmarried partners who were in substantial relationships with those killed in conflict. We have, however, to recognise that the current schemes have been in place for some years.
As has been pointed out to me, my pensions and compensation review will, thankfully, appear before the summer recess. It has been delayed several times, not least because of the Green Paper on pensions and the need for us to take account of other Departments' views. The recent review of our pension and compensation arrangements has looked at how the schemes could best be updated. I can reassure Members that a decision on the final design of the new schemes will be taken very shortly, but, of course, we do not expect to be able to introduce them before 2005.
Before turning to the points that right hon. and hon. Members made today, I should like to touch on the work that we have in hand on veterans' matters—an increasingly important part of our personnel policy. We recognise that service personnel are future veterans and that how we treat ex-service personnel and their dependants can directly affect public understanding and support for the armed forces.
The veterans initiative—which I have overseen for two years, as Minister with responsibility for veterans—recognises that the majority of service personnel return to civilian life successfully and regard service as a positive experience. In addition, a wide range of excellent support is already available to veterans from the Ministry of Defence, other Departments and the voluntary sector.
I pay tribute to the myriad organisations—especially SSAFA, the British Legion, Combat Stress, the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association and a host of others—that in general and specific ways underpin the services that the state provides for our veterans. We could not do it without them because they bring expertise that, with the best will in the world, the state cannot provide, and I have always been a firm believer in the need to involve voluntary associations in helping with people's social and other needs.
Our recently published veterans strategy sets out our key aims, among which are increasing the understanding and awareness of the public in general and young people in particular of the contribution made by our service personnel and ensuring that we recognise and celebrate that contribution. The strategy also aims, along with colleagues across the public sector, to tackle the vulnerability of the small number of service personnel who do not make the transition back to civilian life successfully. That is by no means an exhaustive list of work that we are trying to carry out—nor would I try to claim that there are no other issues to be tackled—but I am trying to demonstrate that we are very conscious of the needs of that group and are carrying out a great deal of work across a wide range of areas to try to meet the needs and aspirations of our veterans.
Before I touch on other matters, I should particularly like to refer to post-traumatic stress because, as someone with medical experience, it is something that is

915
very near to my heart, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) for raising the issue. It is recognised by us as a serious and disabling condition. Measures are in place to prevent or try to prevent post-traumatic stress disorder from occurring among personnel: both pre- and post-deployment briefings and the availability of counselling and advice during and after deployments. Preventive arrangements for the armed forces have been developed over a number of years, and they continue to be reviewed in the light of medical developments in stress management and treatment. The strategic defence review recommended that community psychiatric services should be enhanced, and, consequently, additional military and civilian clinical staff have been employed. There are now 14 departments of community psychiatry across the country along with three satellite centres. It should now be available to every military unit and to every service person across the United Kingdom.
On leaving the armed forces, responsibility for service personnel passes to the NHS, which has a range of psychiatric services available, including some that specialise in the treatment of post-traumatic stress. If a patient's GP is of the view that specialist treatment is required, it can be provided. The NHS national service framework for mental health, which was published in September 1999, set out the commitment to provide better and quicker access to mental health care facilities for all, including the use of private mental health care facilities if agreed by the patient's GP. Ex-service personnel seeking advice on PTSD from the MOD's veterans advice unit are referred to a variety of contacts for assistance. Clearly, first, there is a visit to the local GP, who may refer him or her to a consultant. If the symptoms are believed to relate directly to work in the armed forces, the individual is referred to the War Pensions Agency for assessment of entitlement to a war disablement pension.
In addition, I have visited Combat Stress and am well aware of the work that it does. I fully agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Aldershot that for some but not all veterans with post-traumatic stress, treatment outside the normal run of the NHS is wholly appropriate, and we are wholly prepared to support that.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for that helpful assurance, which supports the point that I was trying to make that the NHS does not have the capability to deal with this problem. May I point out that 60 per cent. of those who go through Combat Stress are in possession of an invalidity pension, but 40 per cent. are not? Forty per cent. are therefore not recognised by the MOD as suffering from some kind of stress disorder.
Dr. Moonie: Strictly speaking, they are not recognised by the War Pensions Agency as suffering from it. I would have hoped that once somebody has clearly demonstrated such symptoms, the case could be reviewed, which, of course, is always an option. Again, I would hope that the better dissemination of advice that we are trying to carry out through the veterans initiative ought to make people more aware of the benefits to which they are entitled. I cannot praise Combat Stress enough. It has done a wonderful job under often very
916
difficult circumstances. I am glad that we can provide it with a certain amount of support, and I hope that that will continue and grow if needs are seen to grow with it, as we could not do without that organisation.
I am conscious of the time remaining, and I must not continue at too much length. Generally, however, we have taken account of the changes in practice from the past, and even from the first Gulf war conflict. We try to manage things preventively. Psychiatric services within the military offer briefings to service personnel at all levels of their training and to junior and senior executive commanders. It is planned that most stress management work should be carried out by an individual's own commander and not by medical personnel, the aim being to try to demedicalise an individual's reaction to a traumatic event. Individuals are encouraged to self-help within their natural peer group. Briefings have been provided to people on Operation Telic before, during and after their deployments. Only time will tell how effective that is. The great problem with post-traumatic stress, as anybody who has worked on it knows, is that we cannot predict who will get it. If we could do so, it would be a darned sight easier to manage.
Following the lessons that have been learned, as Members are probably aware, I have instituted a study through the King's college group in London under Professor Wesley, which will look prospectively at the health of a sample of those returning from the Gulf this time, to try to give us definitive information on how health experience develops over time. The sample will be large enough to provide us with accurate information on the health of the group as a whole. Clearly, it is not realistic to conduct work of that depth on everyone who was deployed, but we will make sure that the sample is large enough for easonable conclusions to be drawn. I cannot say how long it will take for that work to be completed—that is the behest of those who are carrying out the research for us—but it will take as long as is necessary. It is, in fact, open-ended, and I do not anticipate that it will stop until I am quite certain that there are no health problems about which we should be concerned. However, I assure Members that I shall publish work when it is appropriate to do so—in other words, when it is of value and when there is something concrete that I can do.
In the limited time left, may I try to deal with the many other points that were made? Many Members mentioned the role of employers and the fear of reservists, which is an important point. Frankly, if any reservist thinks that being a reservist in the British armed forces does not involve full-time service, I do not know what planet they are living on. We have made it clear over the past couple of years that we expect reservists to serve. They will be called up compulsorily when their services are needed. To digress briefly, I agree with everything that was said about manpower. It would be lovely to have full manpower in our armed forces, but we are short on advice on how to achieve that—
Patrick Mercerrose—
Dr. Moonie: I have only a limited time left, but the hon. Gentleman's experience in his regiment provided us with some advice on manpower.
Patrick Mercer: That advice has never been sought.
Dr. Moonie: I promise to look at that, as I have responsibility for all personnel and recruitment matters, along with all the other things that I look after.

917
Overstretch is a problem in specific units, rather than the forces overall, although up to 59 per cent. of the Army has recently been deployed on active service. Clearly, that cannot be sustained in the long term. We are trying to rotate personnel, and have a roulement system in which we rotate all personnel who have been serving. I shall take up the case of the dentist raised by the hon. Member for Aldershot. We have been trying to prevent individuals from serving for such a long time, but we have used reserves to spare our regulars from deployment, as many of them will be redeployed if they have to go back. That was one of the reasons for the alteration.
The point about people sitting around doing nothing is well taken. We have to deploy enough people to cover our needs in case there is a lot of work to be done. The fact that we had mercifully few casualties, even taking into account the fact that we had to deal with civilians and Iraqi soldiers as well as our own casualties, is something to be grateful for. However, lack of work is of great concern to our medical people. Nobody with considerable skills likes to be left sitting around doing nothing and watching their skills degrade. We will have to pay close attention to that.
I shall make one or two general points. I shall look in detail at the point about Senegal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) along with colleagues from the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development, and get back to him. On numbers, we have made no plans, and I have seen nothing. I can say hand on heart that I have seen nothing whatsoever in the MOD to suggest that we are about to cut regiments. That does not mean that regiments will not be cut and roles will not be changed—no Minister could make any such promise to the House. That has not happened in the past, and I am not going to do it tonight. However, no such suggestions have been made to us. Capabilities change, configurations of forces must change, and the numbers and expertise of our personnel have to change with them. That is not done by faceless bureaucrats, as the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) unkindly suggested, but by uniformed senior personnel. It is always the MOD in general which is blamed for things. However, a bunch of Ministers have not decided to sit down and be as sod-like as possible to the armed forces. In fact, the armed forces themselves decided what capabilities they needed to fulfil the commitments that we asked them to make.
I have not covered nearly enough. On housing targets, I accept the problem. We are making improvements. On accommodation, when I tell soldiers that I will improve their accommodation and they are living rent free, they whine. They quite like roughing it, living rent free and spending their money on something else—not all of them, I may add, but a substantial minority.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) made some interesting points, about which I shall write to him, as I do not have
918
time to deal with them now. The points about logistics are well taken. There were individual instances in which supplies did not come up to the mark—
It being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

ESTIMATES
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee),
That this House agrees with the report [10th June] of the Liaison Committee.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

  Park Road Branch Post Office
  6 pm
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: I present the petition of Mr. William Burkitt and 400 other of my constituents living in the Park Road area of Hastings. I wholly support the petition, which calls on the Post Office to withdraw its proposals to close the Park Road branch post office, which would cause undue distress to many, particularly elderly, people living in the area. The petition
  Declares that the proposed closure of Park Road Branch Post Office, Hastings, will cause difficulties to elderly and disabled residents and that the alternatives proposed by the Post Office are not acceptable.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Post Office to reconsider such proposals and allow the Park Road branch to continue providing a service to the community.
  And the Petitioners remain, &c.
  To lie upon the Table.

  RAF Northolt
  6.1 pm
  Mr. Gareth Thomas: On behalf of almost 1,000 of my constituents, I present a petition opposing any further expansion in the use by commercial air traffic of RAF Northolt, which neighbours my constituency. My constituents are concerned that the possible increase
  in the current level of air traffic accruing from the shared military and commercial use of RAF Northolt would have adverse environmental consequences and social costs, namely noise and atmospheric pollution, as well as a considerable further reduction in the amenity of the local people.
  They ask the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Defence
  not to allow any further significant increase in the number of flights departing or landing at RAF Northolt.
  To lie upon the Table.

Immigration Rules
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger]
6.2 pm
Mr. Siôn Simon: I am grateful for the opportunity to have an Adjournment debate on a matter in which my interest was first stimulated when some constituents relatively recently began to express concern that it seemed to be impossible to obtain anything other than printed copies of changes to the immigration rules.
It is widely accepted that the internet is the future, and indeed the present. There have been many statements from the Government over the years about the importance of citizens being able to interact with the Government online, and much progress has been made. Acts of Parliament and most statutory instruments are already available on the web, but that does not mean that all legislation is readily available. In particular, until three days ago, changes to the immigration rules were available only in paper form from The Stationery Office.
Surely of all Government information, that which is likely to be of most interest to many people abroad should be available through the medium that is global, virtual and free. That may not sound like a big issue, but if someone is denied knowledge of legal changes affecting his immigration case because he cannot get the documents, it certainly is. The immigration and nationality directorate has a website that is reasonably comprehensive.
I was pleased to learn from a constituent earlier this week that what would have been one of my main requests to the Minister has already been met—as I said, just three days ago. It is now the case that any changes to the immigration rules are shown separately, as well as being incorporated in the consolidated version of the rules that was previously available. Until that extra facility was added earlier this week, anyone wishing to spot the changes would have had a difficult, if not almost impossible, task. I congratulate the Minister on that useful and important new facility.
There are still one or two other points that I would like to raise. Unless the Minister is aware of any later change not yet mentioned on the IND website, it is correct to say that the latest changes to the immigration rules are those that took place on 30 May. That is the first set of changes to be separately documented on the website, but it was not added until 9 June, 10 days after it took effect. As those changes to the immigration rules do not appear to have been accompanied by any press release—certainly, none is mentioned on the website—it follows that most people will have been ignorant of them for 10 days before they were made available on the website.
Of course, those changes were the first to be separately available. On the same date, the consolidated version of the rules was also updated. I wonder whether the delay in making available the new rules, which were effective from 30 May, occurred because work on the consolidated version was not finished. If that was the case, I urge the Minister to ensure in respect of any future changes that the changed document is made
920
available without delay and that it is noted at the top of the consolidated document that the new changes, which are effective from a stated date, have yet to be incorporated in the consolidated version. In that way, it will be possible for any interested parties to work out for themselves the effect of any changes. I submit to her that it is far better than allowing people to be in the dark simply to put the information on the web so that they can see how the law has changed and the ways in which it might affect them.
While I warmly welcome the publication of the documents on the IND website, I wonder whether it will be possible to go further. The Minister may well have a technical explanation of why it is not possible to do so. I am by no means expert in these matters, as no doubt she and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are, but I wonder why the immigration rules and any changes to them are not published as statutory instruments. That is the usual method that the Government use to introduce secondary legislation and I cannot think of any logical reason why the immigration rules and changes to them are treated so differently. I look forward to hearing her remarks about that.
I have mentioned the changes to the rules that took effect on 30 May. An examination of that changed document shows that there have been no fewer than seven sets of changes in the past 12 months: on 27 August, 7 November and 26 November 2002, and on 8 January, 10 February, 31 March and 30 May 2003. An examination of press releases issued by Ministers appears to show that only four of those changes merited a press release. The other three sets of changes do not appear to have merited a press release of any kind. I cannot help but wonder if it is right for changes to be made and a press release not to be issued in explanation. Does the issue relate to the point that I made about statutory instruments, which tend to be published with details of the new legislation followed by an explanatory note? Immigration rules do not currently have the benefit of such explanations.
While the IND is to be commended for many aspects of its website, and especially the consolidated immigration rules, one aspect is now clearly out of date—the "How we apply the rules" section. For example, that section still refers to spouse visas as being issued for a 12-month period, whereas since April, they have been issued for 24 months. I note that the website was updated today, which is commendable, but that period is still erroneously listed as 12 months rather than 24 months. I ask the Minister to ensure that the website is updated not only regularly, but properly.
The major set of changes in the past 12 months appears to be those that were published on 31 March this year and took effect on 1 April. There were seven pages of detailed changes and a press release was duly issued at the same time. It is three or four pages long and was issued in the name of the Home Secretary. The changes deal with all sorts of matters, including tightening up on switchers—those who come to the UK in one visa capacity and then want to change to a different category. They also deal with the change in the spouse visa period that I have mentioned.

921
The press release said nothing about switchers. On spouse visas, it merely said:
"The changes will also tighten up the rules on marriage to prevent people getting involved in sham marriages as a way of getting into, or staying in, the UK."
That is hardly a lot of detail and does not specifically mention two years at all. In other words, the press release gives minimal detail about the changes. That is to be expected, as it is in the nature of a press release, but it is also why we could do with some more detailed and up-to-date explanation on the website.
It was not until the website was updated on 10 April, nine days after the legislation took effect, that those not in possession of a written copy of the statement of changes to immigration rules could read about the detailed changes that had already passed into law. Those seven pages of detailed change included some very important ones. Following the White Paper, "Secure Borders, Safe Haven", which was issued in February 2002, many people wanted to know which of its proposals would make it into the immigration rules and in what form. The fact that the wording of the detailed changes was not available in any form on the internet until after the changes had taken effect bolsters the problem that I am highlighting. I urge the Minister to speed up access to any future changes and to consider whether it would be possible for such documents to be published as statutory instruments, as well as on the IND website.
As regards the changes that took effect on 1 April, the Minister may recollect that I asked two written questions about the matter. The first asked
"whether, following the recent changes made to paragraph 284 of the Immigration Rules, he will take steps to make it clear that the holder of a fiancé(e) visa of six months' duration can apply for their spouse visa in the UK."
The Minister replied:
"It was never intended that the "no-switching provision"—prohibiting those given leave to enter for six months or less from switching into marriage—would include those given leave to enter as fiancés. This will be made absolutely clear in the next rules change."
I was happy to get that answer, but I point out that when the next rule change was made on 30 May, it did not incorporate any change to paragraph 284. I therefore ask the Minister for an assurance that the issue remains on her to-do list.
My second question asked
"when, following the recent changes made to paragraph 287 of the Immigration Rules, the current holder of a 12 month duration spouse visa issued in March or earlier can apply for their Indefinite Leave to Remain visa; and whether such a person may apply for indefinite leave to remain near the end of their current 12 month visa."
The Minister kindly replied:
"The recent increase in the probationary period on marriage to two years will not affect applications to remain on the basis of marriage made before 1 April. The probationary period in these cases will remain one year and applications for settlement can be made no more than one month in advance of the end of the probationary period."— [Official Report, 15 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 433W.]
922
Again, I welcomed that answer, but it raises a more profound point. Anyone reading the immigration rules would undoubtedly conclude that the Minister's answer, although eminently sensible, is not actually what the rules say. That is, the changes introduced with effect from 1 April did not incorporate any transitional provisions to make the situation clear. Will the Minister consider whether it might be sensible to incorporate transitional provisions in the immigration rules where a profound change is being made, such as the duration of spouse visas moving from one year to two years?
According to the changes introduced with effect from 30 May this year, the current rules were laid before Parliament on 23 May 1994. They have since been amended no fewer than 25 times. I suggest to the Minister that it may be time for the 1994 rules and those 25 sets of changes to be replaced by one new consolidated set of rules. That would make it easier for everyone, including the IND, to follow them.
I am conscious that these matters are not exactly sexy, but they are no less important for that. I am very grateful to the Minister and the House for their time, and for the positive work that the Minister has already done and the positive changes that she has already made. I look forward to hearing her comments on what further progress she plans to make.
6.14 pm
The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): I welcome the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon) for raising such important issues. He demonstrates a commendable and remarkable depth of knowledge of a detailed and technical subject. He has given credit where it is due and identified some important aspects, to which we can make improvements.
Immigration policy is high on the public agenda, and my hon. Friend is right that immigration rules play a vital part in setting out and interpreting the Government's policy on that. Too often, the media concentrate solely on the abuse of the asylum process and the way in which we should deal with economic migrants who come to the United Kingdom and claim asylum. However, as my hon. Friend made clear, immigration policy goes much wider than that.
Many thousands of people come to this country each year for entirely legitimate reasons—and often support our economy—to work, study, join families or marry and settle with their spouse. Patterns of migration are constantly changing and we need to ensure that our immigration rules keep up with them. We must also ensure that changes are made to prevent new avenues of abuse and that those who are given leave to remain in this country have a valid reason for staying.
As hon. Members may know, the immigration rules constitute a statement of policies that the Secretary of State is obliged to produce from time to time under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971. The statutory instrument process that my hon. Friend mentioned is

923
not the process in law for making changes to the immigration rules. I shall explain the reasons for that. The rules set out the basic criteria for the admission and stay of persons subject to immigration control. Changes to the rules can take effect on the day when they are made or on a specified date in future, and, of course, there is a mechanism whereby Parliament can challenge such changes. If the House is sitting, hon. Members are notified of changes in the form of a documented statement of changes. If the House is not sitting, notification occurs via a Command Paper. Changes are deposited with the Votes and Proceedings desk in the Journal Office in this House and in the Printed Paper Office in another place. They are also listed on the Order Paper for each House.
The previous two sets of changes came into effect this year on 1 April and 30 May respectively. The first set covered issues such as adoption, the highly skilled migrant programme, the innovator scheme, the long residence concession, marriage and employment matters. The second covered sector-based employment schemes and the Hague convention.
When possible, we publish in advance any proposed changes to the immigration rules and consult interested parties. The decision on whether changes should be accompanied by a press notice depends on the extent of the change and on whether it has previously been announced. For example, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced the introduction of the sector-based scheme in the rule change of 30 May in his Budget report on 9 April.
On the 1 April changes, we first published details of the proposals to increase the probationary period on marriage to two years in the White Paper, "Secure Borders, Safe Haven", to which my hon. Friend referred. In it, we explained our reasons for proposing the change: it would help to prevent sham marriages. It also gave us the opportunity to take on board comments from the public and from immigration organisations. The White Paper also gave information about the highly skilled migrant programme.
In some instances, we respond to immediate concerns and, for good reasons, it is necessary to make a change quickly without prior publication or consultation. One example is the recent increase in the sponsorship age on marriage to 18 years. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) wrote to us expressing anxiety that vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds were being forced into marriage against their wishes with spouses abroad. That is different from arranged marriages in which both parties consent to the marriage. It was said that young people were being duped by their parents into going abroad, held prisoner and put under severe pressure to marry someone whom their parents selected. We did not feel that we could allow that to continue, and considered that urgent action was needed. The opportunity arose to include the change in the immigration rules quickly and it was introduced without public consultation. There are other circumstances in which changes are introduced without prior public consultation, when there is a deliberate decision not to make an announcement in
924
advance. This is when a measure is being brought in to preserve or strengthen immigration control, and it is important to have that facility.
The Government need the flexibility to act in this area without delay, when that is necessary in the public interest. The current format of the immigration rules provides that flexibility in the most appropriate way. That flexibility would be diminished to an unacceptable level if the immigration rules had to be produced as a statutory instrument. As the House will know, as a general rule, statutory instruments subject to negative resolution must be laid at least 21 days before they come into force. Such a delay could have serious implications when we had to introduce a new visa regime, for example. As I have said, there are mechanisms to ensure that the Government are accountable to Parliament in respect of changes made to the immigration rules.
My hon. Friend raised the extremely important point about the accessibility of the public to changes in the rules. We are committed to making any changes to the rules as accessible to the public as possible, in line with our general commitment to openness and to modernising public services, including through the best use of information technology. In addition, we aim to incorporate any changes into the consolidated text of the immigration rules available on the immigration and nationality directorate website as soon as is practicable after they have been made. This reflects the commitment that we gave in the Home Office publication scheme, produced under section 19 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, to make information about current immigration, asylum and nationality legislation available on our website.
A consolidated version of the immigration rules reflecting the most up-to-date text is already available on the website. The text can be found in the "Law and Policy" section alongside information about other immigration legislation and associated staff guidance. I want to continue to look at ways to improve the presentation and accessibility of material on the site, and we will aim to improve the timeliness of updates to the site. My hon. Friend made a point about that, which I take very well.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, we have now changed our practice to ensure that any further changes to the immigration rules are also placed in the "Law and Policy" section as separate documents. During discussions with officials today, as a result of my hon. Friend being granted this debate, I also asked them whether we could highlight the changes in the consolidated text, at least for a period of time, so that people reading the text can immediately see what recent changes there have been. That way, it will be clearer to hon. Members and their constituents what changes have been made. We will also work to improve our performance in updating the published guidance in the "How we apply the rules" section. In response to another point made by my hon. Friend, we aim formally to consolidate the whole of the rules later this year so that up-to-date copies can be obtained from the Stationery Office. This will also help everyone to see and understand all the changes made in recent years, and how this updates and strengthens the rules.
On my hon. Friend's point about his recent written questions, I can assure him that we will amend the rules

925
at some future point to make explicit the position of fiancées in relation to switching. As I have made clear, the no-switching provision does not apply to fiancées. There is no need to introduce transitional provisions to the immigration rules. Changes to the rules cannot apply retrospectively, and the date from which they take effect is always shown on the statement of changes.
926
I hope that I have addressed my hon. Friend's concerns in my reply. I also hope that his raising this important, although technical, issue will be of assistance to other people who are interested in this very important subject.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Six o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. FRANK COOK in the Chair]

Energy Issues
[Relevant documents: Energy Issues—A Sustainable Energy Strategy? Renewables and the PIU review, Fifth Report from the Environmental Audit Committee, Session 2001–02, HC 582–1, and the Government's response thereto, Second Special Report, Session 2002–03, HC 471; Towards a Non-Carbon Fuel Economy: Research, Development and Demonstration, Fourth Report from the Science and Technology Committee, Session 2002–03, HC 55–1, and the Government's response thereto, Sixth Special Report, Session 2002–03, HC 745; and Security of Energy Supply, Second Report from the Trade and Industry Committee, Session 2001–02, HC 364 -1, and the Government's response thereto, Third Special Report, Session 2001–02, HC 884.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Caplin.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Martin O'Neill: May I say, Mr. Cook—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would be remiss in my duties if I were not to point out that, when the House took the decision to hold sittings in this Chamber, it decided also that during sittings in the Chamber, certain occupants of the Chair should be addressed as Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am one of them.
Mr. O'Neill: In order to make you happy, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall continue in that vein.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not a question of making me happy: it is a question of abiding by the decisions of the House. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that.
Mr. O'Neill: I must confess, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I thought satisfying you by going along with the decisions of the House would have made you happy. However, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to open the debate on the energy White Paper.
My introductory remarks will be fairly short, as I am accompanied by the Chairmen of the two other Select Committees that have taken an interest in the subject. We decided that it would be more sensible to deal with all the issues—and to make my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Construction even more miserable by having to reply to three speeches instead of only one. However, given the comprehensive character of the White Paper, it should not be too daunting a task for an experienced Minister such as my hon. Friend.
A number of Committees have had a bite at the cherry on the ground that the subject is of considerable importance. My Committee, the Trade and Industry Committee, considered the matter through the
310WH
perspective of the needs of industry and the economy. My colleagues will introduce their reports and observations in due course.
Prior to publication of the White Paper, the performance and innovation unit report was much anticipated. My colleagues and I considered much of the evidence presented to the PIU, and were able to interview a number of those who presented it. In the course of writing the report, there occurred what Harold Macmillan once referred to as "events". The British energy event was an example of the application of the law of unintended consequences, which, to a certain extent, has changed at least some of our thinking about the time scales involved.
The White Paper laid out the three challenges with clarity. First, the environmental challenge includes taking account of climate change in a way that Government documents had not done before. Secondly, it recognised the decline of indigenous energy supplies. Thirdly, it dealt with the need to update much of the United Kingdom's energy infrastructure.
Perhaps it was because my hon. Friend the Minister was, in a previous incarnation, a football journalist that he said that, following the three challenges, there would be four goals. The first was to cut CO2 emissions by 60 per cent. of 1990 levels by 2050, with evidence of progress by 2020. The second was the maintenance of reliability and the continuing commitment to promote competition in markets in the UK and beyond. The third was to seek to raise the rate of sustainable growth and improve productivity. The last was to give proper recognition—this is the first time that a Government statement on energy has done so—to the needs of the fuel poor and to ensuring that every home is adequately and affordably heated.
Members of the Environmental Audit Committee will want to talk about the objective of a carbon-free economy, and the Select Committee on Trade and Industry certainly dealt with the closure of coal-fired stations and the fact that emissions trading schemes and emissions curbs will have an impact on the viability of several such stations before too long. The Trade and Industry Committee was concerned that any reduction in the number of coal-fired stations—we appreciate that the number of Magnox stations will also fall, and that they will close fairly regularly between now and 2011—could lead to a sizeable drop in our generating capacity in a comparatively short time. The emissions trading schemes may provide a little elbow room for particular stations, but it will disadvantage some of the ageing stations, which are likely to disappear before too long.
Richard Ottawa: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the closure of plants at the end of this decade and at the beginning of the next. Does he agree that there is unlikely to be any long-term investment in new plant under the present financial arrangements, because the present financial market simply does not encourage it?
Mr. O'Neill: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall come to that point in a moment. However, as he helps to make my point for me, I shall not dwell on it.
There is some optimism about the renewables sector but, given the gaps that exist in it, it is perhaps still a little optimistic to believe that, by 2010, we can achieve the 10

311WH
per cent. target in our renewables obligation, which is, in effect, a subsidy to renewable forms of generation. However, the failure to achieve the renewables target by 2010 should not necessarily provoke cheap criticisms of renewables. It would be acceptable to achieve the target by 2011 or 2012.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. O'Neill: I have only a limited amount of time, but I will give way.
Mr. Thomas: On the point about whether we can meet the renewables target, the hon. Gentleman may not know that the Renewable Power Association has produced a road map towards a renewable future. The association says that the industry can not only meet the target but exceed it. If the industry receives Government help, it will certainly meet the target.
Mr. O'Neill: I am very suspicious of any industry or trade group that promotes its own case. The United Kingdom has been bedevilled by trade groups that promote particular forms of generation. People who use windmills are not likely to be any more honest than those who use other forms of generation.
Dr. Ian Gibson: What a cynic.
Mr. O'Neill: I plead guilty to the charge of cynicism on this occasion.
A sizeable part of our renewables ambitions will focus on wind power, and as we develop it, we shall have to find means of transmitting the electricity at relatively low cost to areas of demand. Anyone who looks at a map of Scotland—the area with the most wind—will see that people do not like to live in windy places. We must therefore transmit the electricity, with all the losses that that involves. As we increase our dependence on wind power from areas where the wind blows most strongly, we shall need carefully to consider the implications for the grid. We shall also need to consider the cost of constructing an alternative grid, not least because we have a problem with the intermittency of wind power. We will therefore need to retain a base load capacity.
I know that some people say that, even if we recognise the decline in nuclear and coal energy and put qualified support into renewables, the short to medium-term answer is gas. Gas could be part of the answer, but we must start negotiations with the Norwegians and others to ensure the supplies. Issues are beginning to emerge with the gas pipeline projects. I was lobbied a couple of days ago by Norsk Hydro, which is anxious to have a brand new pipeline laid—it will finish somewhere near Hull—almost immediately.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. O'Neill: I have given way already, and there is only a short time available for each speaker.
Without taking sides on the question of whether the project promoted by Norsk Hydro is the most desirable way of transporting Norwegian gas, I believe that the
312WH
Government must be more forthcoming. Industry and the Government should work together to identify the most realistic interconnecting facilities required to import gas from continental Europe, assuming that we can gain access to the gas that goes through the pipes of monopoly suppliers. For example, the German Länder have monopoly control of some of the pipelines and there may be difficulties, but we must ensure the interconnection.
We must also get something that we have never had in Britain—proper storage facilities. The industry is coy about saying what it wants, but the Government should set out how many days? consumption should be reasonably stored and then give the industry the opportunity to deal with a storage facility.
A point was made earlier about investment in new generating kit. The new electricity trading arrangements have been successful insofar as they have pushed down the price of electricity from unacceptably high levels, although they have also put into jeopardy several enterprises, including British Energy. Equally significantly, and not only in a supply situation with more generating capacity, we could reach the point at which our current generating capacity will be inappropriate for our needs in the short term—in about 2010 or 2012. We need price regimes in place, and the British electricity trading and transmission arrangements will afford us the opportunity of tweaking arrangements to secure prices that make it attractive for people to invest. We do not have to do that immediately, but certainly by 2007 or 2008.
By that point, some of the problems that confront the nuclear industry may have been addressed. New reactors may be up and running across the globe and could assist the British nuclear case if it is argued that there should be replacement. I have an open mind on that, but the parlous state of British Energy is a cause for concern, and I would worry about another period of outage of the kind that occurred at Torness, because of the impact that it could have on British Energy's already fragile circumstances. I know that the company is addressing the issue vigorously, but if a reactor went down, it could be in serious trouble.
The days of plentiful energy supplies and low energy prices are probably almost over. That was implicit in the White Paper, but it would help if the Minister reinforced that point as a warning. Prices are beginning to creep up, and businesses that use a lot of electricity are complaining about the impact of the renewables obligation. One can argue that they would say that, but there is a case for recognising that prices will go up.
If the prices of electricity and gas go up by sizeable amounts, the fourth objective—the social dimension of the Government's energy policy—becomes a little frayed. We know that there is a sizeable dependence on social security payments among those who have been taken out of fuel poverty. We have not yet been able to fulfil the ambitious programme of higher building standards, better insulation, and more efficient means of using and generating electricity for disadvantaged domestic consumers. If electricity prices were to rise by 5 per cent., and gas prices by 15 per cent., 800,000 people would return to fuel poverty, and much of the credible progress that has been made by the Government would be lost. It is important that the Government build into their thinking—and into the national consciousness—

313WH
the fact that we are no longer able to say that energy prices will be stable. Prices will probably start to rise. If that happens, we must ensure that we have means of generation that are as efficient and environmentally acceptable as possible. We must work in markets that will assist as many consumers as possible. I could go on at considerable length on that matter, but I have probably gone further than I should. My colleagues will wish to embellish what I have said, and raise other points.
The document is worth while; it is not a road map, but perhaps a picture of the terrain; the mountains that we have to climb and the ravines that we must cross. If only there were torrents, we could have used them for hydroelectricity. We have enough checks and balances in place—and probably too many Select Committees for the Minister's liking—to keep a close watch on the issue. The agenda is not just for one generation, but at least two generations if we take 25 years to be a generation. What we do in the next 10 years may not necessarily irrevocably change things in the short term, but it could have a great influence over a longer period. To that extent, we should welcome the White Paper, albeit with the qualifications that I have outlined.
2.47 pm
Dr. Ian Gibson: It is a great privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill). We often speak together at Burns suppers, which are, quite often, the highlight of a dreary evening in this place. I hope that we will move things forward as a result of today's debate.
I am pleased to present the Select Committee on Science and Technology's report "Towards a Non-Carbon Fuel Economy: Research, Development and Demonstration". We held six evidence sessions. We spoke to research councils, renewable energy researchers, representatives of the power generation industry, environmental groups, the Minister for Energy and Construction, and the chief scientific adviser. We went to Culham in Oxfordshire to see the fusion facility, and we went to Japan where we saw the fusion programme and heard about the investment incentives provided by the Japanese Government. I would like to thank the Clerks for getting us there and back in one piece—a difficult task as there were prolific amounts of saki at times. I also thank our external advisers who kept us on track: Professor Dennis Anderson of Imperial College London, Nick Otter of Alstom Power, and Professor Michael Elves—a former director of Glaxo Wellcome.
We set about the inquiry to look at the role of research development and demonstration in moving the UK to a non-carbon fuel future. We assessed expenditure by public funding bodies, research councils, Government Departments, and the new Carbon Trust. We found that the sums invested in public research and development lacked focus, and were completely insufficient to enable us to meet the renewables targets. The renewables target of a 60 per cent. reduction in CO2 emissions is not an issue on which the jury is out; we are all signed up to it. We must ensure that we achieve it, and we all know why. We know that the global climate problems cause ancillary problems that destroy the lives of many people, environments and so on.
314WH
This country is signed up to the target, but there is a lot of work to do yet on persuading other countries, not least the United States of America, to come on board. However, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others have taken on that challenge, and we will continue wherever we are active to ensure that that happens. Rising temperatures and the 60 per cent. CO2 reduction are what this is all about. We must reach the target.
When it is said that research expenditure is too low, I should point out that that is often in comparison with other countries, and that is not to say that there has not been an upward trend. All we are saying is that this issue is like many other areas of life here: things are not happening fast enough to ensure that we reach the targets that we want to reach. Our funding—which often looks fragmented, poorly co-ordinated and lacking in focus—demands real consideration and a drive that will be new to us. The Government are almost touching on that but, from what we saw in our Committee, we are not convinced that the aim will be achieved. We need convincing, and perhaps here this afternoon we will be assured that that will happen.
We agree that research and development expenditure is on an upward trend, but the chief scientific adviser has said that the UK should increase its energy R and D expenditure in line with its nearest EU competitors. The Government conclude by saying only that the trend is upward, but we want to quantify that and to know what will be achieved over the next few years given the problems that we face. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether he agrees with the chief scientific adviser and what target he thinks the UK should aim for on R and D expenditure in this area.
Recognising the fragmentation of efforts in the UK, we proposed a renewable energy authority. We wanted to pull together the Government's efforts in developing low-carbon technologies. We wanted them to work with industry to make the renewable energy targets a realistic ambition, rather than just a vague aspiration, which is what we thought we were hearing and what we identified. We reckoned that that authority would assess Britain's strengths and prioritise offshore and marine technologies and nuclear fission and fusion. We recognised that if we did not achieve our renewables targets, fusion and fission would have to be seriously contemplated.
Things can get quite ugly in our Committee. We talked about a White Paper that looked green around the edges. Perhaps in a cruel way, we said that there was a yellow streak in it because the Government would not consider the position of nuclear power. I talked at this morning's meeting run by the Nuclear Industry Association, which was full of eminent people, I know that they need guidance as to where their industry is going. It is not that they are not in favour of renewables and do not identify with the need for them, but they want to know what type of technologies and research they should work on.
Mr. David Drew: I am pleased that my hon. Friend was able to attend that meeting, at which I was also present. Will he concede that there is a general problem, not only with the nuclear industry, but with the energy industry as a whole, in attracting people of the right calibre and ensuring that the energy industry

315WH
has a sufficient skills base? We do not seem to be too good at that in this country. The nuclear industry is a fairly stark example, but other industries, particularly renewables, surely face the same problem.
Dr. Gibson: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; he is absolutely right. Let us consider the position in our universities, where physics departments are closing and young people are not choosing physics and similar subjects. That happens for many reasons, but one is the change that has taken place in the nuclear industry. It used to hire many talented young people who saw it as offering a career path and the excitement of carrying out research and developing technologies in that area. They do not see that now. Probably only 200 or 300 young people are now involved in that industry. What signal do we give if we cannot say definitely where that industry will be in five, 10 or 20 years' time? Will it play a serious part in the development of energy policy?
Mr. David Chaytor: To pursue the point about the relative contribution of nuclear and renewables to the non-carbon future, will my hon. Friend accept that a missing link in his report, excellent though it was, is the assessment of the cost of reducing carbon in the different technologies? It is difficult to assess the research priorities until we know what are the cheapest ways of getting rid of a certain type of carbon.
Dr. Gibson: Again, my hon. Friend is right. The House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology recognised that gap, and will examine the matter in detail. I welcome the interaction between the two Houses in considering the problem. Obviously, one cannot do everything—there may be 100 questions, but one can answer only 20 at a time—but we want to know what the targets are, if we can achieve them and what we need to do.
It has been said that there are holes in the recent White Paper, but it has inspired many communities to do things. In a recent meeting in the House, a group from Norwich—where else—called CRed, which stands for the community carbon reduction project, told us what it was doing in East Anglia to pull the community together to recognise these problems and to try to engage everyone at all levels—from schools to Delia Smith keeping the lid on the pan. She has kept a lid on the pan at Norwich City football club for some time, but that is another story. Nevertheless, people throughout the community are becoming engaged in the project. Community politics and the engagement of everyone in all parts of our society are important. The issue is not the responsibility only of Government, but of schools, community groups and individuals. The joined-up thinking that is now emerging from the White Paper is great, and we should try to ensure that others in our communities try to achieve the targets. The Government cannot do that on their own; they need everyone to be engaged.
I said something about the void relating to nuclear power stations, which others will also mention, and about the message that we are sending. We have also been to see nuclear fusion in action. The Government have injected lots of money into that, as they have into
316WH
wind and wave power, biomass and biofuels. There is a recognition of the need for tax reductions so that farmers can become involved in the conversion of discarded vegetation into biofuels, thereby protecting the environment.
The White Paper has generated a mood of excitement, as has the work of the three Select Committees. We are engaging in detail and urging people to do more and more. This is the time to achieve targets. The world is ready, and we must make it happen. There is no doubt that the nuclear fusion industry in this country is of world class, and Government support for it will pay off. The Japanese look at us with envy. We may envy their photovoltaic industry, but they regard our nuclear fusion industry as spot on.
We know that there are public concerns about nuclear fission and its radioactive waste. It is not at the top of the polls with regard to what people want. However, such attitudes can be turned around with the right development of technologies. We should try to encourage that. We do not want to end up with the lights going off, as they did in California. After all, the last time the lights went off in this country was during the imposition of the three-day week and the miners' strikes. We all know what happened to that industry, thanks to the Conservative party and its many friends. We do not want that to happen again. We now have the technology and the will to ensure that the lights stay on and that industry keeps developing.
Mr. Andrew Robathan rose—
Dr. Gibson: I thought that that might inspire a few comments from the Opposition. They cannot resist it.
Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. He is trying to develop a non-carbon economy theory, and I could not agree more with almost everything that he said. However, is he saying that he would like there to be more coal-fired power stations?
Dr. Gibson: No, and I did not know that there were many left. I thought that the Conservative party had closed most of them, and many of us spent a lifetime trying to stop it doing that. However, that is not the subject of the debate, as we well know.
The new energy technologies, renewables obligations, climate change levy and emissions trading schemes are not sufficient and must be developed. Our report argues how they might be developed, with the use of radical carbon and renewable energy taxes, distinguishing between the different technologies at different stages of their development and their carbon status.
The energy White Paper has many admirable features and is inspirational in getting people to react to the issues, but we as a Committee were unconvinced that the targets on reduction of carbon emissions to be met by 2010 and 2020 were backed by sufficient proper investment in research and development at this stage to help to achieve those targets. It is a challenge, but there are people waiting in the wings to join in with new ideas and new technologies.
Our Committee says to the Government that they should let the science and technology do the talking: they should give investment and support to the scientific and technological community in the United Kingdom so that they can produce the results.
3 pm
Mr. John Horam: I am delighted to present the three reports with my two colleagues, who on the one hand represented scepticism, which is probably realistic, and on the other enthusiasm, which is probably more true of the scientists. I am also delighted to see the Minister here because I know that he is a genuine enthusiast for the topic. I hope that he survives today's reshuffle, which may be—
Mr. Robathan: Cull.
Mr. Horam: The cull, or whatever it is, that may be taking place off stage. We need a Minister with enthusiasm for the subject. Incidentally, I have never found out—that may be due to the Minister's skill—which form of energy he is most enthusiastic about, but I accept that he may have to hide his light under a bushel in that respect.
The Minister for Energy and Construction (Mr. Brian Wilson): I will tell the hon. Gentleman later.
Mr. Horam: That is good to know. It is possible that the Minister may no longer want to hold his job. He may feel that, having produced the White Paper, his job is done and that someone else can take over. However, I remind him that a White Paper is no good unless it is implemented. There are many Liberal Democrats here and I understand that they have a good slogan—"No leaflet is a leaflet unless it is delivered." The same is true of White Papers—no White Paper is a White Paper until it is implemented.
The Environmental Audit Committee produced two recent reports—the more recent of which we are discussing today—covering the sustainable energy strategy, renewables and the performance and innovation unit review. In 1999, we produced an equally interesting report on energy efficiency. The Minister may be aware, following the evidence that he gave to our Committee recently, that before the end of the summer recess we intend to produce a short report giving our reaction to the White Paper, so with regard to energy we will have covered the waterfront as one might say.
The Committee welcomes the positive attitude that the Government have taken towards renewables. However, as they would probably admit, the targets that they have set are very challenging. We pointed out in the report that the 5 per cent. renewables target for this year would be missed. The Government admitted subsequently that that was the case and noted that it might be missed by as much as 2 per cent. There is a 10 per cent. target for 2010, but the renewables obligation imposes an even higher target of 10.4 per cent. by 2010 and the definition of renewables under the renewables obligation is much narrower—it is only 1.5 per cent. at present, as opposed to 2.9 per cent. on the broader definition that we had hitherto considered.
Those targets are huge and if they are to be achieved, there will have to be a massive increase, mainly from wind power. It has been calculated that to achieve that target one or two wind turbines would have to be erected every day between now and 2010—a total of about 6,000 turbines. As a fellow Chairman said, that may be possible engineering-wise but the economics come into the frame, too.
318WH
The problem is that the Government are contributing relatively few new resources. An extra £60 million is added to the total spending on renewables, which brings it to £340 million, but that is over a four-year period, so it amounts to about £19 million a year. It compares poorly with the Government's support for nuclear energy in the past decade or so, and unfavourably with what our competitors in countries such as Germany and Japan spend. Although I accept that the amount is a welcome increase, we are in an international market, as the Government say constantly, and we have to accept that other countries make large investments.
The Government will say, understandably, that they have a raft of measures—the new electricity tariff arrangements, the renewables obligation and so on—with which they hope to push energy towards more renewables. That will work to some extent, but we should acknowledge that there are problems in the NETA arrangements, which are different from those in Germany and Japan to encourage renewables. Those countries have the so-called feed-in arrangements whereby the premium payment goes directly to the generator; in the UK it goes to the supplier. Therefore, the supplier, who is in a strong bargaining position, can often negotiate away the premium payment, which in Germany goes directly to the generator, and therefore reduce the incentive for people to invest in the area.
Malcolm Bruce: Is not the problem that the existing arrangement pulls through the cheapest, most developed form of renewable energy and does not pull through those that are in development? At present, there is a massive expansion of wind power, but wave and tidal power, for example, are not at a commercial level, and apart from Government grants there is no mechanism for pilot projects to encourage it. That is why the German system would deliver what is wanted.
Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is only one premium payment at one level in the UK. We cannot have a band of different payments. Wind power, which is much cheaper than the others—I believe it is 2p per kWh—gets pulled through, whereas biomass, for example, which is about 10p per kWh does not. I am indebted to GLOBE UK for drawing my attention to the fact that
"after producing electricity for only eight days, the troubled biomass power plant in Eggborough, Yorkshire has been sold for £3 million. The project cost £30 million, £3 million of which was provided by the DTI."
That taxpayers' money has presumably gone down the drain unless someone buys the plant and can make it run economically in another part of the country. That is what happens with biomass as a consequence of not being able to pull through technologies that are in their infancy. Thus, everything goes into wind power and the Government have not yet faced up to that problem.
A third problem is that distributors and arrangements are needed for getting the power into the grid system, which needs large-scale investment that the Government cannot justify under the NETA arrangements.
The problems flow from the fundamental nature of the arrangements that the Government have put in place. It is surprising for a Conservative to argue that they are too market-oriented; not enough allowance is

319WH
made for planning. The Government will no doubt argue that the German system would lead to high prices. However, at least one of my fellow Chairmen has argued that the period of very low prices is coming to an end. They were too low and would have risen anyway, and we should consider more carefully the effect on the fuel poor. The Government have an obligation to make arrangements to ensure that the fuel poor do not suffer from an increase in prices. However, we cannot for ever go on doing nothing and worshipping at the altar of cheap power because of the fuel poor and it is up to the Government to cut the Gordian knot. I am sympathetic to the view that there must always be a balance between the social, the environmental and the economic considerations in a sustainable development approach, but it is up to the Government to work it out in a sensible way that does not disadvantage the fuel poor.
Finally, I should like to speak briefly on two things, energy efficiency and nuclear power.
Mr. Gareth Thomas: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to energy efficiency, may I encourage him to share my view that there is another lesson from the German experience? It concerns planning policy. Germany has adopted a strategy of identifying sites for wind farms, which helps it to overcome at a much earlier stage the initial difficulties that communities inevitably have with them. Are there not lessons there for onshore wind farms in the UK, given that we have seen that kind of strategy for offshore wind?
Mr. Horam: Yes. The hon. Gentleman has hit on the other big issue, the planning problem, of which we are all well aware. Can the Minister tell us the situation regarding reviewing PPG22? How far advanced is the planning guidance to assist renewables? The matter has been pending for some time. What is the Government's position? It is a crucial issue, as the hon. Gentleman indicated.
I do not want to say much about energy efficiency, partly for reasons of time and also because the White Paper made it plain that a further implementation document is to be published within 12 months. It will deal in detail with energy efficiency, which is hugely important, and has hitherto been the Cinderella of energy, and needs that sort of careful attention. Can the Minister tell us how advanced the implementation plan is and when we can expect its publication?
Mr. Chaytor: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the energy efficiency point, is it not the case that, in dealing with the problem of fuel poverty in a period of rising prices, energy efficiency is the only way of squaring the circle? Secondly, returning to my intervention about the cost of cutting carbon per tonne, is it not the Minister's experience that the cheapest way of cutting carbon is improving energy efficiency?
Mr. Horam: I am not used to such helpful interventions. None the less, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Environmental Audit Committee. I agree. Fuel efficiency is a major part of the way through the problem.
320WH
On nuclear power, I am not unsympathetic to some of the Government's decisions about British Energy, which faced real problems, but I have two questions. First, why did they set a deadline for the sale of the American assets? That seems to be foolish in economic terms. Perhaps it was due to European stipulations, but it has led to the equivalent of a fire sale; those assets are bound to attract a lower price—
Mr. Wilson: I will deal with that now. The sale of the Bruce assets resulted in British Energy's borrowing being quickly cancelled, so none of the £650 billion facility is currently taken up. As for AmerGen, we have given some flexibility to British Energy for exactly the reason that the hon. Gentleman states.
Mr. Horam: The Government have changed their position; there is now more flexibility on the sale of the American assets than there used to be. Is that the case?
Mr. Wilson: On AmerGen, yes, precisely, because otherwise it creates far too much of a buyer's market.
Mr. Horam: That is my point; I am glad that the Government have acknowledged it. The other issue is the contract that was signed some time ago between British Energy and British Nuclear Fuels. That contract was disadvantageous to British Energy. Are any negotiations going on about that? It is fundamental to the future of British Energy that that be unwound in a sensible way. I therefore hope that the Minister will stay in his post and unravel those knotty problems in due order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Reference has already been made to the three Select Committee reports. It will be difficult to strike a balance across the House and across the three Committees. None the less, I shall do my utmost to see that everybody gets a bite of the cherry. However, I remind the House that it is the customary practice to commence the first of the three winding-up speeches 30 minutes before termination, so if we are to accommodate everyone, whatever we do must be concluded by 5 pm. I therefore ask all right hon. and hon. Members to bear that in mind when making their contribution and when accepting or making interventions. Six hon. Members have given prior notice of their intention to speak, but more than 50 per cent. of the Members here are standing and seeking to intervene anyway. Nevertheless, I shall do my best.
3.15 pm
Sir Robert Smith: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I welcome this debate as another chance to focus on the issues that the three Select Committee reports and the White Paper raised, and to hear how the Minister is getting on in responding to those concerns. In relation to energy matters, I should first draw Members' attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. Under the heading of registrable shareholdings, I have detailed my holding in Shell Transport and Trading and, under overseas visits, I have included a visit to the Offshore Northern Seas exhibition in Stavanger, for which various oil companies and the UK Offshore Operators Association paid.

321WH
While launching the UK-Norway co-operation working group report at that offshore exhibition, the Minister kindly let me ask a question from the back of the hall, but afterwards he regretted that he had done so. I start by repeating that question: how far has progress been made on the part of the report that dealt with reinforcing the grid from St. Fergus to allow more Norwegian gas to arrive in the United Kingdom? The working group considered how to achieve that.
I have a strong constituency interest in one aspect of the energy debate, which is to do with the future of oil and gas exploration, its use and our security of supply. Many of my constituents work in the industry and the economy of the north-east of Scotland has benefited greatly from it. The north-east is trying to branch out for the future by using its experience of technology in that industry to build a greater base in the renewables sector. However, there is no more sensible or rational way of ensuring this country's security of supply than by making maximum use of the resources on our doorstep. Before we have to start importing energy, we should ensure that we have made best use of those resources with all technical efficiency. The Government's policy should be aimed at encouraging the greatest investment and activity in our gas and oil industry so that, through maximising the benefits here, we avoid depending on imports later. Not only would there be benefits in terms of our balance of trade, but our own supplies would be the most secure of all sources if there were any concerns. Once locked into the ground and abandoned, those resources cannot be returned to with any efficiency or effectiveness.
We have reached a key stage in the North sea, as we noted in the report that referred to the Department of Trade and Industry. The need to encourage and to work closely with the industry has been recognised. Under the Minister, the Department has worked closely with the industry. The taskforce and the pilot that have resulted have been most welcome. The partnership that the Government have achieved by bringing together the various sectors of the industry and trying to develop an overview to increase efficiency and to exchange views on the best way of maximising the UK's potential is much appreciated. However, as we all know, in the last Budget—which took place not long after our report came out—the Chancellor was not perceived to be on the same wavelength as us. He produced a period of uncertainty and a hiatus by changing the tax system in a way that surprised many in the industry.
A year has now passed, and I detect a mending of fences at a senior level. It has been welcomed that, in this Budget, the Chancellor sought to address some of the issues to do with the tariffs on pipelines that were raised by us in opposition last year to try to create a better, more level playing field. I also welcome the fact that he has been working with the industry to examine ways to encourage greater exploration. Those of us who represent constituencies such as those in north-east Scotland meet not just those in senior management but people at a medium level of management who work on databases in the industry. There is still a feeling that considerable damage was done by the way in which the Chancellor introduced the tax as a surprise to the industry and by the way in which it was handled.
The uncertainty that built into people's planning for projects and so on has caused considerable damage and concern to investment. A lot of work will be needed to
322WH
undo that uncertainty. People at a senior level have decided to try to work with the Government, but at the medium level of management there is still much uncertainty and worry about what has happened to the industry.
One change in the industry is that many smaller players are investing in the sector, and the Chancellor is having to work with the industry to see how his incentives for exploration can apply to the new investors. I hope that something productive comes out of the Treasury's engagement. Today's Treasury questions did not give much hope that those on the Treasury Front Bench greatly understand where the process is at and what is happening. We are reaching the end of Committee stage on the Finance Bill, so the chances of something coming out on Report are slim.
There is a worry about the pace at which the Treasury moves. Last year's Budget produced a shock, and the problems were raised by members of the Opposition on Second Reading and in the Committee considering last year's Finance Bill. Many of the issues relating to the taxing and tariffs on pipelines were raised, but it was not until a year later that the Treasury was able to address the issue. The pace at which it responds to concerns could be improved.
What we learned in Norway also relates to our security of supply, as the Norwegians are looking for more markets for their gas. Quite rightly, the Minister is concerned not to be the Minister responsible if gas supplies run out in the United Kingdom. However, there is a concern that if we do not make the best use of the infrastructure on our side of the North sea, we will lose out in our negotiations with the Norwegians. There is redundant capacity in many of our pipelines in the North sea. The Norwegians are keen to pressurise the Government to sign up to treaties that will allow them to control new pipelines that come all the way to our coastline and bypass the spare capacity in the North sea. We urge the Minister to recognise that he has some leverage: the Norwegians need a market as much as we need their gas. We urge him to make sure that there is a level playing field in any negotiations and that the market is not distorted in any way. Reassurances would be helpful.
Mr. Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the reasons for the treaty negotiations taking much longer than some people might have expected is because those points were contested with such vigour and in such detail? I hope that he and other hon. Members will not criticise the delay in the treaty, because to do so would be to say that we should come to an agreement come what may. For the reasons that he gives and for many others, it is more important to get it right.
Sir Robert Smith: That was a reassuring intervention. In fact, I had planned to say that I hoped the fact that the scare stories that a deal was to be signed in Shetland a few weeks back and the fact that it never materialised were a sign that those on this side of the negotiations were taking the tough line being asked of them.
I want to touch on some other issues in the debate. Fuel poverty was mentioned and I want to reinforce the argument that energy efficiency must be the ultimate way of unlocking the problem of fuel poverty. If we can

323WH
tackle the energy efficiency of our housing stock, when people's personal financial circumstances change, they will not fall into fuel poverty because they will already live in efficient houses.
If we tackle the energy efficiency of people's housing stock and they move, they may take on a house in which the operating costs will be more expensive. If we can tackle the problem of housing stock, we shall also tackle demand across the country and help to reinforce our Kyoto agreements.
Mr. Simon Thomas: We also need to consider the fact that energy is more expensive for the poorest people. Those who have bank accounts can set up direct debits. As a result, they may pay for more than they use in the summer, but they can spread their payments over the year. They will then pay at the cheapest tariff. Those who have pre-payment meters pay at the highest rate. We need to consider social issues such as how to enable the poorest to get the cheapest fuel.
Sir Robert Smith: Maximising access to the best deals and ensuring that debt blocking does not prevent people from moving to a cheaper supplier but allows them to transfer their debt to a new supplier are important.
That brings me to two final issues. One is regulation and the vital role of the regulator. The Government are now giving the regulator signals that have steered him in a direction that will allow environmental considerations to become more important. It is also important that the regulator should realise that, every time an investigation is carried out, it creates burdens and imposes costs on industry even if he decides not to alter the regime. The regulator should think carefully before launching into further investigations. For instance, the gas balancing investigation seemed to take two or three years, but the regulator eventually accepted the status quo. Better communication would result in less cost, and people would not have to work out what to do about the regulator.
The Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee mentioned his views on the colours of the White Paper. I considered intervening on him because, in reply to the Trade and Industry Committee's recommendation that there be no further delay in Government decision making on nuclear energy and that
"the Government should make a clear statement on the future of nuclear energy as quickly as possible",
the Government said:
"This issue will be addressed in the forthcoming White Paper."
The Government's indecision has sent the signal that, if we are to have a non-carbon future, it will have to be done through the renewables sector. The Government's decision not to make a decision on nuclear energy has sent the signal that the new challenge lies with renewables.
3.27 pm
Mr. Tony McWalter: In the time available, I shall concentrate on what I regard as the core issues. I shall focus on the disagreement between
324WH
the Minister and the Science and Technology Committee, of which I am a member, on the role of markets, particularly the Committee's suggestion that the White Paper has a yellow streak.
The Government's view of energy generation suggests a picture in which the United Kingdom's present capacity for 80 GW is likened to a Roman chariot race, with each horse tugging a gigawatt or half a gigawatt. The Government seem desperately frightened that, as time goes by, some of the horses will expire, which will lead to the total capacity of the system being lower. If someone says, "Here's a new horse. It might carry a bit"—particularly if it is a thoroughbred, non-carbon horse—it seems that the Government would welcome it to the race.
In that context, the Science and Technology Committee believes that we need something larger than horses. My knowledge of the world of dinosaurs is not good, so using one might give the wrong impression, but elephants might do. We need a huge animal, one that can take a significant part of the load that will be lost as a result of some of the carboniferous horses no longer being welcomed to the race. Secondly, as someone who is opposed to nuclear power, my view is that we should also retire some of those horses, despite the fact that they carry a significant part of the generating capacity.
One must ask whether the Government have put a sensible strategy in place. The Government say that markets will drive matters forward. I believe that they are wrong. The Government have set some very good targets, but, as the Select Committee on Trade and Industry pointed out on page 41 of its report—which deals with combined heat and power units—the Government have got the target right, but have no strategy for achieving it. Whatever the generating capacity needs to be in 2020 or 2050, whether it is 80 GW or, through some magical conservation, only 60 GW, or 100 GW or 1,000 GW, we must have something other than a market system in place to generate that capacity.
People have mentioned wind farms. That is all very well, but the contribution to that massive figure that winds farms can make is quite small. In addition, the technology comes from abroad. We wish to see the creation of a non-carbon, non-nuclear capacity involving an industry that would meet the domestic need, and that would provide us with world-leading technology that would enable us to sell that knowledge and capacity to other countries.
Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. Wind technology was originally British technology, but because it was not developed in the way that the Select Committee on Science and Technology would like, that technology went elsewhere. We are at the point where we could become world leaders in other technologies, but the existing mechanism is guaranteed to ensure that Britain misses out again, unless we change our approach.
Mr. McWalter: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If I may pursue my horse analogy further, the Government put rather lighter saddles on some of the renewables horses, but they are still not equipped to run around the course effectively, so the demand for the product from those chariots is much less than it is from

325WH
those of the older technologies. We are not saying that we want only one method of power generation. We are conscious that wave and tidal power is an enormously risky technology to back; it is unproven, and studies were dropped at a time when we could have gained a world lead. However, it is vital that the Government revisit that as a technology that gives us the best chance of achieving the economic and generation aims that we have been discussing. That is particularly helpful to us because, unlike Japan, which has a steep continental shelf, and which cannot dream of introducing that kind of technology, our continental shelf, and the wave and tidal movements that result from it, has a raw energy capacity that could, if harnessed properly, be productive.
Sir Robert Smith: I wish to reinforce for those outside the Chamber the benefits of tidal energy. It is totally predictable—as long as the moon continues to move around the Earth.
Mr. McWalter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The Select Committee on Science and Technology has said that the Government should pick a winner. However, in picking the winner of wave and tidal energy, we are throwing all the other horses out of the race. That is what the Government's response, on page 8 of their submission, seems to say. Effectively, they say that it would not be a good idea to concentrate their expenditure on technologies that are regarded as winning low-carbon options.
We are saying not that we should back only one horse, but that we should leave all the other horses in the race. However, we must ensure that at least one option has a burden to bear and is given the fortification to bear that burden and generate a significant amount of resources by appropriately using this country's expertise, geography and topology. We are saying that the Government should not necessarily back a winner, but should make a huge investment. Just before a previous Secretary of State resigned, he seemed to be willing to do just that. As is the way with Government reshuffles, he had no sooner said the words than he had gone.
On page 51 of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry report, it says that it agrees with the Government that we should not pick winners. I hope that the result of this debate will be that the Trade and Industry Committee comes on board with the Science and Technology Committee to agree the common cause that it is vital for Britain's economic future and non-carbon generating capacity for there to be something other than the let-the-market-decide approach. If we manage to agree something like that, this country might be able to meet the demand for electricity, even though many of the horses currently running will have fallen.
There are early-day motions to say that we agree with the Government's targets. That is fantastic—I want to see zero carbon emissions—but the problem with targets is that if we do not have a mechanism to achieve them, the lights go out and the country seizes up. If that happens, it does nobody any good at all.
We need to select a technology that will deliver a significant amount of our capacity. I want it to be non-nuclear and non-carboniferous and to be developed in accordance with our technological and scientific
326WH
expertise, traditions and capacities. Considering that, the field narrows, but we need the Government to say that they will act. The necessary investment can be compared to planning to put a millennium dome on the continental shelf—I use the analogy advisedly—and a serious pilot project would cost a similar amount of money to the original dome, about £750 million. So when the Government say that they are putting £15 million into this and £12 million into that, they are not addressing the fact that we need a massive project that has the capacity to prove or, sadly, disprove one technology, once and for all.
If we can do that, and the technology works, we will begin to see an energy future that is increasingly less dependent on carbon, advisedly phasing out nuclear fission capacity and all of the problems of a nuclear legacy, and generating for us the power that we need to keep a modern economy going throughout this century.
3.39 pm
Paddy Tipping: As I am not a member of any of the Select Committees whose papers we are considering today, I am grateful to take part in the debate. I am keen to focus on the White Paper and the PIU report that came before it. I was struck by the Prime Minister's introduction to the White Paper, which he called
"a milestone in energy policy."
It is, indeed, a milestone, and it introduces major changes. We are to move quickly to a vision of the low-carbon economy, with carbon dioxide emissions to fall by 60 per cent. by 2050. That change is to be driven by the rapid rise in renewables. We are also to move from being a net exporter to a net importer of energy. Significantly, as other hon. Members have said, energy prices are now to go up, after a period in which they went down.
The Government and the Minister are very brave to produce such a White Paper, which looks 20 or 50 years ahead. Putting their strategy, or vision, down on paper gives people in the industry an opportunity to criticise what they have done and to ask whether the targets will be achieved. In that respect, it is interesting that the White Paper itself says that the proposed
"scenario will need to be updated in the light of experience."
The situation is therefore still flexible.
It is important to recognise that this is the only White Paper that we have. We might wish for another one but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) said, people in the industry know that they have to get behind the White Paper to make the vision a reality. However, I have some doubts about whether that will happen.
The Select Committee reports are complimentary about the White Paper, but they are also critical and challenging at times, so let us start with some simple criticisms. The White Paper does not even do some of the easy things. Combined heat and power has been of great concern to the Minister, and we have not met our targets. However, the White Paper does not make clear how we are to do that.
I am also interested in the issue of coal mine methane, in which the Minister has also been involved. It is a real pollutant, and we could make major environmental

327WH
changes if we could capture it and generate electricity from it. The industry is on its knees and is moving abroad, but the White Paper simply says, "This is a hard issue. We'll come back to it." We need more clarity about the way forward.
There has already been a discussion in the Chamber about the place of coal. Environmental concerns will kill the coal industry unless we can generate electricity more cleanly and more effectively from coal. I am worried that we spend less on clean-coal research than Japan, which does not have an indigenous coal industry. People are critical of the Bush Administration, but United States spending on clean-coal technology is enormous. Richard Budge's plant at Hatfield gives us an opportunity to study burning coal more effectively, more efficiently and in a more environmentally friendly way. However, the market will not take these proposals forward by itself, and we need to consider mechanisms to ensure that we move from research to a demonstration plant at Hatfield.
Another aspect of the White Paper that hon. Members have mentioned is the growth in renewables. We must achieve 10 per cent. by 2010, and the aspiration is that we achieve 20 per cent. by 2020. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) that we shall not get there by 2010, but we should strive to do so. I am concerned that we have still only achieved less than 3 per cent., much of which is made up of traditional hydro. Unless we move quickly towards wind development and particularly offshore development, we shall face difficulties. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) rightly said that the matter needs to be considered across Government. We must take into account the planning issues that affect wind power and we must ensure that we have a more effective way of delivering it. It is still the case that three out of every four wind power applications do not see the light of day. That is a poor success rate.
The problem with wind power and other renewables is that they are variable and peripheral. One of our tasks is to move our energy industry, which has traditionally been coal and steel based, to the edges of the country. That means rewiring Britain, which will involve tremendous costs. In addition, we need back-up for wind power and storage mechanisms. My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil spoke about the need to store gas. If the White Paper is to succeed, we need an enormous investment in infrastructure. I am not confident that those issues are addressed in the White Paper.
If the renewables industry struggles, as I suspect that it will, we will become even more reliant upon gas. I am not a great advocate of security of supply, but I feel that the White Paper is complacent when it comes to gas. By 2020, 70 per cent. of electricity could be produced from gas, 90 per cent. of which would be imported. I know that the Prime Minister has remarkable diplomatic skills, but one of the lessons of the Gulf war is that one cannot negotiate one's way through everything. I would he very concerned if we were to become that dependent on gas. Diversity of supply will increasingly be an issue,
328WH
and we will be forced to reconsider coal as a flexible way of generating electricity, and to return to the question of nuclear in four or five years.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Mainly on the point of gas, but a little on coal, has the hon. Gentleman seen a report called "20:20 vision" from a one-day conference of the Scientific Alliance on the future of energy policy in the UK, and the presentations made there, particularly by Dr. Roger Bentley? I think that the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) was there. Dr. Bentley said that the policy that we consider should be based on the presumption that after 2015 the amount of hydrocarbons that we are able to extract effectively and cost effectively will start to decline. That is another reason to encourage diversity.
Paddy Tipping: I would be pleased to have the benefit of 20:20 vision and the ability to see that far into the future. The essential point is that we need diversity of supply. That has been the cornerstone of our energy policy for many years and we should stick with it. Energy prices will not stay low forever. In environmental and sustainability terms, it is right that they should go up. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and others have said, we have not yet thought through the social and economic consequences of that. We must do that if energy prices are to rise.
I take the point that other hon. Members have made that energy conservation is extremely important. Let me be blunt. I do not understand the host of energy conservation measures that already exist—there is a wide range of schemes. One of the things that the White Paper indicates is that we must, as a matter of urgency, review energy conservation and have a simpler regime. It is a straightforward equation: we want to make savings and we need to put Government money into it. The simple way to measure the payback is to see by how much we reduce energy use and how much energy we save. We need to work very hard on that.
These are big challenges for the White Paper, but the real challenge is simply this: over the past 10 years, we have relied on the market to deliver on our energy needs and energy policy. The White Paper represents a partial step change from that, because it advocates a new framework and some new structures and directions. Those are things that only the Government can intervene on and produce; we cannot rely on the market to do that. We need to go for a third way, as they say, on energy policy whereby the market operates within the energy framework set out by the Government. However, the fabric of government works against that. It has been said this afternoon that a variety of Departments are involved, which often compete with one another and have competing priorities.
The most difficult thing about the energy White Paper is the delivery mechanism. Do we really believe that an energy policy can be implemented by a sustainable energy policy network and the creation of a sustainable energy policy advisory board, both reporting to the ministerial group chaired jointly by the Secretaries of State at the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs? I do not believe that that is a possibility.
My analysis is that the White Paper is big on vision, and we should back that vision. The direction is generally right, but the practicalities, and most

329WH
particularly the delivery mechanism, will, I am afraid, prove inadequate. As the White Paper itself says, this is a scenario that we will have to revisit. I strongly believe that we will move away from an energy policy that is primarily driven by renewables to a much more traditional approach under which coal, gas, renewables and nuclear all play a part. That is a sensible British tradition, and the way forward.
3.52 pm
Mr. Simon Thomas: I am pleased to have an opportunity to contribute to the debate as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee. I begin by placing on the record my appreciation of a colleague who died this week. Dr. Phil Williams, a Welsh Assembly Member for Plaid Cymru, died on Tuesday night. He was a professor of astrophysics at the university of Wales in Aberystwyth in my constituency and did more than anyone in Wales to put renewable energy on the political agenda. Ten years ago, he proposed targets for renewable energy for Wales that are now the official targets of the National Assembly for Wales. It is unfortunate that he has died at a young age—he was in his early 60s—having only just retired from the Assembly. I hope that hon. Members will join me in sending commiserations to his family. More than anyone, Dr. Williams sought to underline Wales's role in the wider scientific community and the contribution that Welsh scientists and science in Wales make to the debate. He will be sorely missed.
As a Member of Parliament, I, too, want a low-carbon future. I am not quite sure about a zero-carbon future because as a carbon-based life form, I like to have a few emissions. Not all of them contribute too much to the greenhouse environment. We need to be able to do that—[Interruption.] I hope never to be taken over by the green goo or whatever it is called. I am convinced that we have a future as carbon-based life forms together with the other carbon-based life forms on the planet and that we, as the primary species affecting the climate, must make certain key decisions now to ensure that by 2050 we are not having the same impact on the climate and climate change as we seem to be having at the moment.
One of the great things that has happened in the past three years is that the debate has moved forward significantly. When I first came to Parliament three years ago, people were still seriously saying in the press, the other media and Parliament that climate change was not happening, or that if it was, it was due to glacial fluctuations or something that had nothing to do with our output of carbon. I understand that that argument is still put forward in places such as America, but on the whole it has been defeated in this country. The body politic in this country, together with the best scientific advice, now agrees on that point at least. The White Paper incorporates the commitment to a 60 per cent. reduction by 2050, which I very much welcome. The White Paper's key achievement is that it has drawn a line under that debate and allows us to move on. On the basis of debates such as this, we must now decide what are the best technologies to make available to achieve that aim.
The Environmental Audit Committee's criticisms, which the Chairman outlined to some extent, relate to the lack of targets that clearly take us to 2050. We have
330WH
agreed, at least in this debate, that energy efficiency is one of the key tools that we must use to achieve the reduction of 60 per cent. However, we know that the White Paper contains no hard targets for energy efficiency. When the Minister came before the Committee, he and his advisers disagreed about whether the figures in the White Paper were targets. We are still not clear about that. The Cabinet Office produced some targets, challenges, or whatever the Government like to call them these days, including a 20 per cent. improvement by 2010 and another 20 per cent. improvement by 2020. I hope that those will be incorporated in Government policy and that we will work towards them.
Targets for renewables are also missing from the White Paper or are not sufficiently far reaching. The Committee had a real target for 2010, which it believed would not be achieved because of the current rate of growth in renewables. We are already going to miss that first target, but our aspiration is to double it for 2020. If we are not certain that we have the right tool kit for reaching that first target, the aspiration for 2020 becomes even weaker.
Perhaps even more worrying is the Minister's assertion on the day on which the White Paper was published that renewables and energy efficiency have five years to prove themselves. He knows that I take renewables and energy efficiency very seriously and that I want the Government to achieve their targets. His assertion is unfair on those sectors. After seeing nuclear energy commit suicide and then digging up the body, we can give more hope to energy efficiency and renewables. Let us not wait for five years until they have proved themselves. Let us work with them to ensure that they prove themselves, because they may be our only real option for a low-carbon future. If there are other options, the White Paper does not say what they might be.
Mr. Wilson: I am not complaining, but I am being slightly misrepresented. I was saying that we will have a much clearer idea of what carbon reduction renewables and energy efficiency will deliver by about 2008. There will have to be a reassessment then. I never undermined the objective. I believe that there should he maximum support, which I hope that we are giving, to both those pillars of our policy. If they deliver what we hope of them by 2008, no one will cheer louder than I will.
Mr. Thomas: I certainly accept the Minister's words. I do not doubt his enthusiasm for the subject in any way. However, those targets and assistance for energy efficiency and renewables need to be clearer. It is not only renewables and energy efficiency that must prove their worth; the Government must prove theirs by creating the right circumstances for those sectors to flourish. The Environmental Audit Committee believes that they could contribute hugely to these tasks and targets and said so in its report, which the Chairman mentioned. We want the Government to respond to that with a little more enthusiasm and clarity.
I mentioned, in an intervention that the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) did not receive very well, the road map produced by the Renewable Power Association. We should welcome that if it helps a section of the industry to do as well as the Government want them to do, and perhaps a little better.

331WH
Two things must happen to assist renewables to take off. The lack of a planning framework and guidelines, which have been promised for some time, has already been mentioned. Planning is dealt with differently in Wales and Scotland and the story from Wales is disappointing. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) mentioned the lack of planning applications that were going through. It is hugely disappointing that in Wales there has been only one major application in the past few years and that got through only because the Department of Trade and Industry took the decision, not the National Assembly for Wales. It would still be at the Assembly if it had been up to them. Strong devolutionist as I am, I am glad that the application went through. One must be pragmatic about such things. The story from Scotland, where there is a more pro-active understanding of renewables, is rather different. There is already a good hydro sector and wind power has taken off.
There will not be 6,000 more turbines by 2010 because the planning process will not let it happen and neither will local people. Anyone who has a wind farm in their constituency knows how people campaign against them. That is disappointing, but it happens. Our strategy for renewables must go wider than wind power, including offshore wind—I am pleased that the north Wales offshore wind farm is going ahead—and include investment in new technologies.
Photovoltaics have a great role to play and I was interested in the comments about tidal and wave energy. We are told that renewables are intermittent and therefore we cannot rely on them, but tidal and wave energy are not intermittent; we can rely on them, as we can predict the tides. It would be useful to invest in that sector although it is not yet ready to bring to market.
Dr. Alan Whitehead: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we need a variety of renewables that relate to the rural and urban environments? On planning permission, the issue is that much of the renewables load is being placed on rural areas. Conversely, urban renewable technology, such as photovoltaics, or near-renewable technology, such as combined heat and power, appear to be disadvantaged and yet have the urban dimension that could make substantial progress in distributing the renewables load throughout the country.
Mr. Thomas: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. The alternative is to invest hugely in infrastructure to take the wind energy from west Wales, which has a low population, to Birmingham, for example, which has a very high population. The hon. Gentleman mentioned some valuable alternatives. Why cannot we ensure that every new house is built with a PV source of energy? We could take that step now and it would make a significant contribution.
I welcome the announcement that the Export Credits Guarantee Department is to have a £50 million renewables fund. The Environmental Audit Committee is undertaking an investigation into the ECGD and its officials appeared before us a couple of weeks ago. I was disappointed to hear that so far there have been only
332WH
three applications to the renewables fund, as United Kingdom technology on renewables could be exported—supported by the ECGD. Whether it is PV in South Africa, wind energy and so on, I hope that the Minister will encourage the Department to be more proactive and ensure that the fund is used and has a beneficial effect on UK industry.
I will mention fossil fuel because coal still produces 36 per cent. of our energy and that will continue for some time to come. I am an Aberdare boy from the south Wales valleys and coal mining is in my family. I speak with sentiment about the subject, as well as with hard pragmatism. I would like assistance to be given to help the coal industry meet the challenge of a low-carbon future. Many of the coal plants are too old, not efficient enough, and lacking sulphur scrubbers. EU rules will make it difficult for some of those plants to continue to operate. That industry needs to rise to the challenge and may need assistance from the Government to do so. Another aspect of coal burning is whether carbon sequestration can be a genuine technological option within 10 or 15 years. That would allow us to use—at least for the next 50 years or so—the mix of energy that the hon. Member for Sherwood advocated.
Transport is a crucial issue that has not been mentioned so far in the debate. It is dealt with in the White Paper, but not in detail. Transport emissions are an increasing problem. If one looks at the graphs, one can see that it is an aspect that is decoupled from GDP. Those emissions are going up exponentially. The Government must deal with that.
We must ensure that there is better support for the biofuel sector. That would also support our farmers because many biofuels can be grown in many parts of the UK, for example rapeseed. Any modern diesel car can use at least 15 per cent. biofuel with no problems. The biofuel sector needs support. The Treasury has announced a 20p cut in the duty for biodiesel. The sector says that it needs a larger cut. Let us examine that and work with the industry.
Another important aspect of transport is the rapid growth of the aviation sector and the effect that aviation emissions will have on the ambitions that the Government have set out in the White Paper. The growth of airports and air travel will have a serious long-term effect on a low-carbon policy. Air travel also has wider environmental effects. That is a huge political issue and it is a hot potato in many areas of the UK, particularly the south-east of England, which is most affected. The Environmental Audit Committee is carrying out an investigation into aviation policy and its effect on the environment. I hope that its report will be useful to the Government.
We must take a lead in getting an international agreement on the cost of aviation fuel. That is the most obvious and effective target, rather than passenger taxes. The Deputy Prime Minister once told me that he would take a lead role on that matter for the Government. That was two years ago and nothing has happened. It is no excuse to say that we are bound by international conventions from the 1930s. We know that, but those conventions are surely ripe for examination and renegotiation in light of the huge challenge that the growth of the aviation sector poses to the aims of the White Paper.

333WH
I very much hope that the Government will respond to the useful and helpful criticisms that people have made today. This is a debate for people who take a real interest in these matters. It is a debate for people who have particular views that they wish to get across to the Minister. We are fortunate to have—for today at least—a Minister who is enthusiastic and receptive to those views. If one thing emerges from the debate, I hope that it will be a set of policies that will allow us to put together a proper road map. It is one thing to map out the mountains and ravines—the Cabinet Office report did that, as did the performance and innovation unit report. We expected the White Paper to offer more certainty on energy policy. I hope that the Minister will offer that clarity.
4.8 pm
Dr. Desmond Turner: First and foremost, an important new development in the White Paper is that, for the first time, the Government have accepted as a major political driver the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent. That should from now on be the main driving factor in energy policy. It rates more highly for Britain than either security of supply or producing energy as cheaply as possible. If we do not achieve a 60 per cent. reduction, in 50 years the more extreme climate change scenarios will occur and our successors will curse us for not having chosen the right policy now.
This debate may be only for the benefit of a few anoraks gathered together on a Thursday afternoon on a one-line Whip—[Interruption.] Yes, but it is one of the most important aspects of policy that could be discussed in Parliament. As a country, a depressingly small percentage of our energy is produced from renewable sources—the percentage is far lower than that of Denmark or Germany. How did we reach that position? It is worth reminding ourselves of the lessons of the recent history of energy policy, starting with the Thatcher years, during which it started to go seriously wrong.
In these islands, we have always been uniquely energy rich compared with almost any other country and, consequently, we have been profligate with energy. Thatcherite energy policy was entirely profligate and threw away the lead that we had in renewable energy—in wave and wind power. Wind power was taken up by Denmark, Norway and Germany and we are desperately running to try to get back into the game now that they have a 20-year start on us. Nuclear power was never commercially viable and was developed to the extent that it was for only military reasons. It has never been able to justify itself in a commercial market. That is why British Energy has found itself in such an awful fix.
Mr. McWalter: My hon. Friend said that his principal target is the huge reduction in carboniferous energy production. Since nuclear power is not carbon engendering, will he not in the end give us the Japanese recipe—they intend to fill the gap by building 13 nuclear power stations, even though at current rates that is not economic?
Dr. Turner: My hon. Friend could not be more wrong—that is the last thing that I would do. I am saying that we should fill the gap with truly sustainable
334WH
renewables and I do not regard nuclear power—certainly not nuclear fission power—as a sustainable option. Nuclear fusion is another question.
Mr. O'Neill: I am sorry that I missed my hon. Friend's opening remarks, but I think that I have understood enough of what he said to raise this matter. Has he read one of the background research papers to the White Paper, which was produced by the Makkall Group Ltd.—[Interruption.] With respect, I thought that that was the case. That report suggests that we will be able to secure the low level of carbon that my hon. Friend wants without the use of nuclear power, but that to do so would be at disproportionate cost. Energy prices would be something like 260 per cent. more than we would pay if we had a 40 per cent. nuclear contribution. I am not necessarily advocating a nuclear contribution of that level, but I believe it to be significant that that information is not available in an easily accessible footnote in the White Paper, although it is included in one of the papers adjoining it.
Dr. Turner: I thank my hon. Friend for that interesting intervention. I confess that I have not read the paper to which he refers, but I certainly disagree with its conclusions. There is no way that the substitution of renewables for nuclear or other power sources could carry the sort of financial penalty that he suggests, unless their generations costs were two and a half times higher than current commercial generation costs. I am satisfied that that is not the case for wind power. I am satisfied also that that will not be anywhere near the case for wave and tidal power; indeed, when they are fully exploited, generation costs will be little different from current commercial levels. I completely disagree with that paper's conclusions.
Twenty years later, we shall be in a different situation. We shall have the CO2 imperative, but we shall still be highly energy rich. Although fossil fuels will not be available at the same ridiculously low price as now, we will have offshore the raw energy to supply the country with at least twice the amount of electrical energy that we consume now. I speak of offshore wind, wave and tide power. For me, the future lies offshore. We have a unique strength compared with the rest of the world. Other countries will be able to benefit to a large degree from our industry's exporting the machinery.
Mr. Wilson: I bow to nobody, not even the hon. Gentleman, in my support for wave and tidal power, but I am faced with the uncomfortable fact that, after 20 or 30 years of research and development, I know of only one commercially operating wave power station. It is on the island of Islay and it does not produce much energy. My question is genuine: despite those 20 or 30 years of R and D, how can a leap be assumed from that infant industry that will allow us to dismiss other established forms of generation? How can we assume that the gap will be filled?
Dr. Turner: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He will remember that wave energy research and development was a casualty at the beginning of the Thatcherite years. At the point when wave development was approaching commercial viability under Professor Salter, it was stopped.

335WH
[Interruption.] We could spend all afternoon debating the question. That development was resurrected only recently under this Government. Only two or three years ago, the Department of Trade and Industry completely dismissed the idea that offshore technologies were of any significance and it was putting no money in that direction. The Minister is nodding in agreement. Those were 20 wasted years. We cannot blame the technology for that. We are starting late, but we can catch up rapidly. We can learn much from the wind power industry and we should be able to truncate that development.
Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman's speech seems rather partisan. However, I would like to correct his maths. Mrs. Thatcher was Prime Minister for only 11 years, but he accused her of wasting 20. It may have been too long for the hon. Gentleman, but she certainly was not in power for 20 years.
Dr. Turner: The right hon. Lady was succeeded by others who were just as good at wasting. Those were 20 wasted years.
I think that we all agree with the aspirations expressed in the White Paper. The Science and Technology Committee differs with it on willing the means. I hope that the Minister will not take the differences personally, as they are meant as constructive criticisms. After all, the White Paper is the work of a committee of several Departments and, like all such documents, it has some features of the proverbial camel.
We have a number of serious criticisms, the first of which is that even though the situation has improved, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) was careful to say, we are still spending far less as a Government on research into and the development and deployment of renewable energy than any of our competitors. We are just about matching Finland, which has a much smaller population, and are spending less than the Netherlands, which has only 10 per cent. of our population. We spend one eighth of the French budget, one quarter of Italian investment, one sixtieth of what the Japanese are spending and about one fortieth of what the Americans are investing. It is clearly not good to get into such a big race without sufficient financial capacity, but our Committee sets out a policy framework that can provide the finance without raiding the Treasury's coffers, so we might even be able to get it past Gordon.
Our second criticism is that the present structures and responsibilities involved in the energy business are diffuse. There are several research councils, and although we are glad of the future establishment of the United Kingdom energy research centre and the national energy research network, they do not yet exist. Other bodies—the Energy Saving Trust, the Carbon Trust, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Forestry Commission—are all committing a bit out of their small pots towards energy research, but none is giving enough.
One concrete example illustrates several points that I want to make. I had an interesting conversation today with a professor from Imperial college, who was our
336WH
Committee's adviser on our first report on tidal power. He has a spin-off company that develops tidal power machines, one of which has operated successfully in the water for a year within 3 per cent. of expectation. He has twice been refused funding by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and the DTI, but he has now signed a contract with the city of San Francisco. By 2004, he will install a 1 MW plant to be followed within 18 months by a 10 MW plant. In other words, his work is getting commercial.
The costs for that initial commercial demonstration are just about the same as wind power, so heaven knows what the costs will be like when a 100 MW plant is installed. That demonstrates the problem that was raised earlier about the possibility of our losing the technology abroad because it is not being supported here. It also shows that the pace of development does not have to be as slow as is commonly assumed and that it is nowhere near as expensive as is commonly assumed.
Mr. McWalter: Given the Government's response that they spent an estimated £l1 million in 2002–03 on low and non-carbon energy technologies, how long does my hon. Friend think it will be before a fully operational, productive, commercial wave and tidal capacity is available in Britain?
Dr. Turner: That is a very difficult question to answer, as I am sure that my hon. Friend knows. However, I would say that such a capacity would be possible in five years, or 10 years at the absolute maximum, provided that there is sufficient focus, investment and energy.
The White Paper suggests that the Government are happy with the market pull of renewables, but I think that it is far too weak. The renewables obligation is just about strong enough to get conventional power companies to consider investing in offshore wind projects. However, no one will touch anything further down the technological development road, apart from the small to medium-sized enterprises that are trying to get projects off the ground.
The Committee thinks that there is a serious policy vacuum in the White Paper and we want it filled. We therefore proposed that Parliament should pass a renewable energy Act to give the issue political impetus and to introduce specific provisions. The first of those would be a renewable energy authority, which would have UK-wide responsibility for co-ordinating and promoting research and development and, above all, the deployment of renewable energy. It would not just be another new body, to be set alongside existing bodies. Rather, it would bring them into one co-ordinated body. I must, therefore, disagree with the Government's response to our suggestion. They say:
"The proposed renewable energy authority risks diverting effort into the creation of structures and possibly new silos separate from the main stream of energy policy rather than into the delivery of programmes and commitments."
That could not be more wrong, because our proposal is intended to do precisely the reverse—it would make things happen and happen much more effectively.
The Committee also proposes a unified carbon and renewable energy tax. There are many fiscal measures, which we want to bring together into one clearly identifiable tax. Such a tax would penalise CO2-

337WH
producing energy production and use the money raised to finance the energy authority's efforts to promote non-CO2-emitting generation technologies. It is a very straightforward proposal and the arrangements would be self-financing. Indeed, it would be financed from within the power industry, so Gordon would not have to find another penny.
The Committee wants there to be a statutory requirement on grid and supply companies to connect renewables, as there is in Germany. We also want to revise Ofgem's terms of reference to enhance the importance that they give to the environment. I was happy to learn last night that a new chairman has been appointed to Ofgem, and I have every confidence in his abilities. He is a constituent, and I know him well. I think that the Minister will get along nicely with him and that Ofgem will cease to be an obstacle to progress and become a help. I congratulate the Minister on an excellent appointment.
Finally, the Committee wants a statutory requirement on supply companies to provide net metering, so that the embedded sources of generation about which my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) is concerned can be properly catered for.
All those proposals provide a framework that can deliver the aspirations set out in the White Paper. I have taken a few interventions and have spoken for far longer than I intended, so I shall stop now. To sum up, I implore my hon. Friend the Minister—assuming that he is still the Minister with responsibility for energy tomorrow, which I hope he is—to take another look at the policy and take on board our recommendations. Together, we can find a formula that will really make things happen.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It may interest the House to learn that due to the hot air in here this afternoon I have asked for blowers to be turned on. The effects should be felt relatively quickly.
4.29 pm
Malcolm Bruce: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that you have taken an enormous interest in this debate, so I am sorry that we have generated so much hot air. I wholly agree with the thrust of almost every contribution and the belief that we not only should but could make renewables the basis of our energy future. However, that will not be achieved on the basis of the current policies.
Energy efficiency and co-generation are crucial parts of delivering carbon reductions. For many years, I have been an honorary vice-president of the Combined Heat and Power Association. The Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and I were at the Paper Federation of Great Britain dinner last night, at which the industry expressed its total despair that, as the pioneer of combined heat and power in this country, it is providing nothing whatever to the grid and, consequently, losing money on its investment to boot.
A couple of months ago, I was at a dinner of the Combined Heat and Power Association. However much the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) deplores trade associations, it was quite the most depressing dinner of any trade association that I have attended in my 20 years
338WH
in the House. We heard a catalogue of total disasters. For example, National Power regarded its capital investment in CHP as of no value and had written it all off. Some £3 billion of committed investment has been indefinitely cancelled or scrapped, and many hundreds, if not thousands of jobs have been lost in what ought to be an industry that deals in one of the most important technologies with which the Government can deliver their targets.
One cannot listen to such news and then sit back and say, "Oh dear." One clearly must do something more. One suggestion has been that there should be a combined heat and power obligation, which the Government have rejected. There are perhaps good reasons for that. My argument is not that the Government should be told, "No, you must do that," but that they should be asked, "Well, if you're not going to do that, what are we going to do to make this happen?"
I take note of the point that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) made about the new chairman of Ofgem and the hope that that appointment will create a different climate. However, we may return to the situation whereby the chairman must operate within legislation that may still constrain him. We shall have to see about that.
However, we must find a way forward. Much of the debate is about how to find credible mechanisms with which the external costs to the environment can be internalised. It is interesting to see the agreement about objectives and targets between the Trade and Industry Committee and the Science and Technology Committee, but an apparent disagreement on how to achieve those targets. I do not want to go down the route of sustained subsidies from the taxpayer. There is a proper role for taxpayer's money for seedcorn project support, although I agree that a lot of that is relatively small. We need a market that pulls through new technologies and actively makes them happen.
The current renewables obligation gives an advantage to the cheapest technology in the field, but it does nothing to stimulate diversity or the introduction of new technologies unless they become competitive quickly. What usually happens is that the constraints on that technology—planning problems, and so on—are such that it turns out not to be as viable as it first appeared.
One wind farm in my constituency has full planning permission and approval, but construction work has not started because it was negotiated under the previous regime and the contract is no longer viable. As yet, those involved have not been able to renegotiate the contract to take advantage of the current prices. That absurdity should be addressed. Two other applications in my constituency have been extremely contentious. I have refused to back the objectors because I support wind technology, but I have been willing to meet them. I have engaged with them and acted on their behalf to try to obtain answers to their objections, but I have not been prepared to side with them. The question that the objectors put to me is simple, "We're a rural community. Some of us don't like the look of wind turbines. What's in it for us?" The answer to that question is absolutely nothing.
No member of Plaid Cymru is here at present, so I can be more relaxed, but I do not wish to be nationalistic. Scotland has taken it upon itself to set a target of 40 per

339WH
cent. renewable energy by 2020, because of our already established hydro power and our potential—as we see it—for wind, tidal and wave power. I commend that. My colleague Ross Finnie, the Minister responsible for this issue in the Scottish Executive, has taken a bold step and the Executive have supported him. The same question applies across Scotland: this is fine and it will help the UK if we deliver it, but what is in it for Scotland?
In many areas, the answer is some jobs and some spin-off, but they are relatively minor. We need to find a mechanism for ensuring a direct feedback to the communities supporting the industry. I noticed that the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald) has said something to that effect. He has a major application in his constituency. Indeed, I tabled a couple of early-day motions towards the end of last year—which several hon. Members signed—calling for two things: first, indicative planning guidelines to try to identify where development was appropriate and inappropriate to take some of the heat out of the proliferation of applications; and, secondly, some mechanism for the community to have a stake and a share in the economic benefit.
That does not mean that people who do not like these projects will not object, but many other people may take a more objective decision if they can see a direct community financial benefit and can decide whether the environmental impact is acceptable, given the contribution that such projects make to the overall benefit of a low-carbon economy. I hope that the Government will actively regard such ideas as constructive and helpful mechanisms.
The Minister is not here, and I shall not question why he is running in and out of the Chamber. Anyone who looks at the history of what I have said in the 20 years I have been in the House and before will know that—not for all my life, but for most of my political life—I have been opposed to nuclear power. That is not because I object to the technology, but because I have been completely convinced that it is simply non-viable. It has been the cuckoo in the nest of Britain's energy industry. It has siphoned massive resources that have been denied to other energy options.
I remember being involved with Professor Salter's ducks. He was extremely frustrated and angry because he believed that he had got a project to the point where it might have been viable even though other technologies might come along and supersede it. However, all the grants for promoting projects in renewable energy were administered by the Atomic Energy Authority. It was a remarkable coincidence that, each time a renewable project looked as if it was getting somewhere near viability, the money was withdrawn or further money was withheld. It is impossible not to see a connection, particularly when the nuclear industry was getting 100 times as much money and not delivering the results.
We must accept that a free market will not deliver if the environmental costs are not included in the market. The market has no responsibility for them. Unless one can internalise them, the market will not only not deliver, but it will positively obstruct the objective. Therefore, we either have to bring the costs into the market or provide a framework. The Germans'
340WH
argument is that one pays to pull through the technology one wants. One uses the market, but implements an override to ensure that it delivers.
Doing that involves risks as one is backing or encouraging projects or technologies that ultimately may not succeed. However, as long as one has a reasonable spread and a consistent view, the chances are that, across the piece, one will have enough of the success that one wants and one will be able to accommodate a degree of failure. The end result will be a balanced range of energy options that meet environmental objectives and that are broadly accountable to the market.
Consumers of energy—that is all of us—ultimately have to pay for the impact that we are making on the environment. The myth of the expression "the polluter pays" is that it makes the voter to whom we are all appealing feel comfortable that somebody else is paying. However, we are all polluters and we are all paying. If, as has been acknowledged, the consequence is that the price of electricity goes up to meet environmental objectives, we will all pay for it but we will do so willingly because the benefits are justified and without their removing the pressures of genuine commercial competition and the disciplines of the market.
We have discussed wave power, and I have visited the project in Islay, which is being used to generate Greenpeace's green bus on the island. It is an electric bus that powers itself from the wave-generating source, so it is possible to say that there is a zero-carbon bus on a remote Scottish island. However, I do not think that Ken Livingstone will find that it will solve the problems in London yet.
Mr. Wilson: I do not want to be a wet blanket amid all this enthusiasm but, the last I heard, it was broken down beside the swimming pool.
Malcolm Bruce: At least that was due not to a failure of the wave generator but to a technical problem with the bus. Such gimmicks exist to promote environmentally friendly energy and they are only pilot projects. The important thing is that we are demonstrating that there is the capacity. I agree that we need to move into significant commercial projects before we start to get somewhere.
I want to make a plea for other forms of biofuel, in particular timber. I have a letter—I do not know whether the Minister has seen it—from the chair of the infrastructure services committee of Aberdeenshire council, a Liberal Democrat colleague and constituent of mine, Alison McInnes. It is addressed to the Minister and asks for consideration to be given to offcut timber as a source of fuel. There is an embryonic project in one community in my constituency, a combined heat and power plant fuelled by the offcuts of the local timber industry. That could easily become a viable technology and a competitive source, provided that the heat and power are given the combined value. It would also provide the timber industry with a source of income that would encourage it to thin the trees at the right time, which it does not do because it is too expensive and that devalues the end product of the timber.
Mr. O'Neill: The hon. Gentleman might be aware that a number of constituencies, including mine, have

341WH
timber-processing plants that would like to use the timber and to internalise the carbon. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, one of the problems with burning wood is that it creates carbon emissions. Although I understand his enthusiasm for a good local scheme, we are in danger of jeopardising an established British industry that is an effective import substitutor, makes use of all the carbon in the timber and deals with it in a fairly efficient way. We might end up at cross-purposes. We must be a bit cautious before people go down that route without understanding that existing industries do a better job than the one that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
Malcolm Bruce: I do not disagree with the value of the industry that the hon. Gentleman mentions. However, it is not providing a market for the products and there is also a distance problem. If we incorporate the transport costs, as opposed to delivering the offcuts to a local combined heat and power plant, we might find that the two processes can run comfortably side by side. I accept that we need to have a balanced view, but I am not convinced that the two are mutually exclusive. Nevertheless, I take his point.
To complete my point about combined heat and power, the problem is that we have structured the market in such a way that the heat has to be generated but it gives no value to the power. As a consequence, the power is going to waste. However, it is not just going to waste, it is being replaced, because power is having to be bought in, and that has to be generated using carbon sources. In effect, we are generating the electricity twice, because we do not provide a proper mechanism to recognise the value of combined heat and power.
Of course, the industry acknowledges, as the timber industry would, that burning gas or burning anything has a carbon output, but if that is done at 70 or 80 per cent. efficiency, a real contribution is made to energy conservation. If we use the electricity from the heat that we have to generate anyway, that is far better than buying the electricity that is, in effect, generated twice. That is my point.
I am conscious that at least one other hon. Member wants to speak and I do not want to delay our proceedings, but the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) mentioned the welcome commitment by the Government to encourage sustainable projects through the Export Credits Guarantee Department to the tune of £50 million. The problem, as a parliamentary answer to a question that I asked showed, is that only three projects have come forward. There does not appear to be an awful lot of promotion on the website to encourage them to come forward. One of the projects is a waste-to-energy project and it may be questionable on the sustainability point. I am interested to know what we can do to ensure greater take-up.
We should evaluate where the export credits guarantee money that does not come under that £50 million goes. I fear that too much of it still goes to non-sustainable projects—to coal-fired power stations exported to third countries that do not necessarily use the best technology. There is not much point in having a good headline bid for sustainability if we do not check not only whether the projects to which most of the money goes are sustainable, but that they do not actively work against sustainability.
342WH
In the parliamentary debate relating to the conference in Johannesburg, it was suggested that when Governments, through export credits guarantees or aid projects, support non-sustainable projects that increase carbon or greenhouse gas emissions outside their own territory, that extra output of gases should be credited against the national target. That would certainly act as a discipline and constraint. When we do what I have described, we are, in effect, exporting our greenhouse gases while maintaining that we are contributing to an overall lowering of the figure. GLOBE, both here and in the US, is actively trying to encourage Governments to be mindful of that.
I will not repeat the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) about the gas industry, but I support what he said. I very much welcome the Minister's intervention. We need to secure a treaty to enable us to have a secure long-term gas supply. I think that we all accept that that is a major component of energy in the medium term and that it is logical to look to a neighbour, and a friendly neighbour to boot—most of the time anyway—in Norway. It is in our mutual interest to find the right agreement.
We have an infrastructure in the North sea that is under-used because our own supplies are dwindling, and I am not convinced that it would be environmentally or economically sensible to allow the Norwegians to negotiate a completely new infrastructure for their benefit. That would mean the under-use of our infrastructure. I am pleased that the Minister's intervention indicated that we were negotiating hard to try to secure a sensible solution. If we can do that, the outcome will be welcome and, I believe, mutually beneficial to Norway and the United Kingdom.
This has been a good debate and these reports are very important. I completely accept that these matters are not easy and that there are dangers of contradictory policies, but the market will not deliver on its own; we have to manage the market. We have to find not too many but enough measures that will achieve the outcome that we want, and we have to accept that we will make a few mistakes along the road. However, we have made big mistakes by concentrating too much on certain things in the past. If we can pick a few of the right technologies and give them proper support, the chances are that we will finish up with a balanced and environmentally friendly energy mix in 20 or 30 years. At the moment, we are not meeting our targets, and unless we do more and come up with the right policies, we will not meet those targets. The Minister knows that.
4.48 pm
Dr. Alan Whitehead: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), I am not a member of any of these Select Committees, so I am delighted to have been called to make a contribution to one of the important debates that needs to be had in the House. It has been very well served by the various Committee reports. In the past, I have maintained—this may be a suggestion for the future higher education policy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills—that one can get a perfectly good undergraduate degree in many areas of study simply by taking on board what is

343WH
said in Select Committee reports and in volume 2 of the papers accompanying them. There is at least an MA in the reports that we are considering.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) is right that the debate, as the reports and the White Paper reflect, has made immense progress. I recall, as other hon. Members will, almost bleating in the Chamber about certain renewable technologies and suggesting that it would be a good idea if someone did something about them. A White Paper that says that the future for energy is substantially in renewables and the issue is now how we go about ensuring that they work is a quantum leap forward.
There are, however, several other potential obstacles along the way. Now that our position on renewables is established, the key debate is about nuclear energy. The White Paper's message is that a decision has been made as the result of a non-decision. The White Paper seeks to hold the door open, but the nuclear industry, like its product, appears to have a half-life. If nothing positive happens to it over time, it will degrade and eventually vanish.
I do not believe that there is, or should be, a substantial future for nuclear fission as a means of providing domestic and industrial energy. However, that means by definition that a non-decision which is a decision decides other things. It seems to decide in this case that the 23 per cent. of energy that nuclear power provides at present will degrade over time to a very few per cent. as the last few nuclear power stations are phased out by about 2020. The question, therefore, is not whether the renewables can, might or may, with a good wind, fill that gap if we are to reach our overall targets: they must fill that gap.
I accept what the Minister said about the future judgments that may be made about renewables. However, if we have continued to take decisions by taking non-decisions about the nuclear industry by the end of the decade, we will not be in a position to judge whether or not renewables should fill that gap. By then, it will be imperative that they fill that gap.
The decision is underlined by elements of the report published by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on the security of energy supply. It pointedly highlighted the fact that there is no moratorium on the construction of new nuclear plants. The nuclear industry, however, will not build nuclear plants. The report quotes the British Nuclear Industry Forum as saying:
"The principal drawbacks (the City) see are the very large upfront capital costs, the lengthy and uncertain periods of planning and construction, uncertainties about back-end issues like waste management, anxieties about public opinion and regulatory risk, relatively low levels of profitability at present UK electricity prices, and over-capacity in the generating market."
Even if a new plant were built at the end of a long chain of seven or eight new nuclear plants all receiving the benefits of the cost-effectiveness that such a chain would produce, that would still produce electricity per kilowatt-hour above the current rate and substantially above the rate that is likely in the future.
The report says that the nuclear industry suggests that there ought to be a permanent subsidy of around 1p per kilowatt-hour for future nuclear electricity generation.
344WH
Regardless of the problems associated with changing from a partial nuclear energy generating economy to a substantially non-nuclear energy generating economy, two things are apparent. First, the nuclear industry would need a substantial, containing and permanent subsidy to continue. Secondly, left to its own devices, that industry will not invest and the Government would need to invest substantial capital amounts over and above that subsidy. That would be assistance not for just one or two plants, but for a string of nuclear plants, to allow that industry to provide anything like the 23 per cent. share that it enjoys at the moment. That underlines the fact that a decision has been made. Therefore, we must make sure now—not in 10 years—that we deploy the resources of the country in the right way to bring renewable technologies to the market. Other hon. Members have already said that it is difficult to envisage the market producing new technologies. I am reminded of the words of Roy Hattersley in his book "Choose Freedom". He described the operation of the market in the hands of a different Government:
"Government's role is to hold the ring within which the biggest and best equipped boxers can beat their opponents to a pulp."
We must have a rather more sophisticated understanding of how the market might operate to produce a level playing field. The market could then operate between choices of renewables. However, it is clear that the market for renewables as a whole needs to be underpinned because of the imperatives that I have set out.
The danger that we may face is not that of picking winners—it is right that one should not pick winners in a market where different technologies may make different contributions—but that we may pick losers. With combined heat and power, we have potentially picked a loser, or an industry that is going to lose in the fairly near future if the circumstances of its operation are not changed. There is a similar danger with photovoltaics. If we do not introduce circumstances in which the market can be stimulated in the long term, we will lose something in which Britain has taken a substantial technological lead in producing the urban generation that I regard as so important in balancing energy generation in the future. That requires a combination of instruments. We must not simply pump money in. Indeed, the Environmental Audit Committee makes a pertinent point on page 36 of its report, where it states that the Government have pumped money into a number of quasi-winners already. We require a number of market and regulatory instruments that can be fine-tuned to make sure that, as we make progress over the period to 2020, a variety of renewables can come to the market and operate in different parts of the country in different ways. That approach will produce the basket of renewables that will be so essential to fill the gap left by nuclear power.
There must be discussion and progress among Government Departments. One modest suggestion that I have put forward on previous occasions is to have another look at how building regulations can be used to underpin a lot of the market operation. Indeed, according to a recent written answer, the last renewal of building regulations has potentially saved 1.4 megatonnes of carbon as a result of changes in boiler requirements and low-emissivity glazing. As hon. Members suggested, regulations that embed the

345WH
generation of power in building and perhaps ask builders to ensure that houses generate some of the power that they use through a palette of CHP or PV would make a tremendous difference.
In moving into the next period, and as a result of the excellent White Paper and the choices that it puts before us, we need to exercise imagination to ensure that renewable energy does the job that it is sketched in to do up to 2020, so that we can move towards the 60 per cent. target by 2050.
5.1 pm
Mr. Andrew Stunell: We have three reports in front of us that stretch back 18 months, and inevitably some parts of them have been overtaken by events. There are 148 recommendations in the three reports, some of which are mutually exclusive or contradictory. I hope that the Minister will not use any of his time in pointing that out, because the important point is that the three papers and all of today's contributions, have been about taking action and developing the process rather than carrying out a post mortem on the past.
The Government have responded to the reports individually and produced a White Paper in the meantime, but many of the questions and issues raised by the reports are still not settled. I hope that the Minister can give us a pointer about how that will be done.
The three papers between them emphasise the need for Government restructuring that goes beyond what we are hearing about in the newspapers. It cannot make sense that the Department of Trade and Industry, the Treasury, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Transport and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister all have a piece of the action. Points made in today's debate are relevant to each of them.
Questions were asked about building and the huge potential for conservation of energy there. That is mostly the responsibility of the ODPM, and reference was made to planning regulations, which again come under the ODPM. We have hardly touched on transport, apart from a brief reference by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) to aviation. I hope that, if not today, the Government will soon move to a more co-ordinated political approach that strongly implies that many of the energy issues are in the hands of one senior member of the Government.
Questions also emerge from the reports about delivery. There are critical and inquiring comments about the performance of the Carbon Trust, about which I have also asked parliamentary questions. There is scope for examining the Carbon Trust, the Energy Saving Trust and the myriad other organisations that seem to be doing bits and pieces of the jigsaw without having an overall picture to make it from.
The Science and Technology Committee was extremely clear that it saw research as fragmented, with out-of-balance, piecemeal and spotty investment. It sometimes missed important topics and gave a distorted emphasis to one aspect or another. Bearing in mind that the first report was published 18 months ago, the Government seem to have found it hard to reach conclusions on the evidence that they are presented
346WH
with. Too often, we hear words that offer hope, but see a complete lack of action, which drives some of us to despair. Only yesterday, the Minister was in Committee considering the Sustainable Energy Bill and debating how many angels he could get on to the head of a pin, or rather whether it was a target, an objective, a goal or an aspiration. We should be getting on with things rather than tinkering with semantics.
The three reports, taken together—
Brian White: To be fair to the Minister, he made that very point. He argued that we should be getting on and doing things.
Mr. Stunell: I am absolutely delighted about that. I look forward to being proved comprehensively wrong at the Committee stage next week and on Report. I do not hesitate to line up with all those hon. Members in the debate today and those on Committees who contributed to the reports in saying that we must have action quickly. If the Minister tells me that I am behind the times on that, I shall be delighted.
The three reports, taken together, say that we need to change the structures, put money in the right places and to have real enthusiasm to deliver a comprehensive and sustainable energy policy. However, I say to the Minister that anyone who looked at the electricity supply industry in 1900 would have been unable to predict what that industry would have been like in 1950, and anyone looking at it in 1950 would have been unable to predict what it would be like in 2000. Similarly, anyone looking ahead now to the year 2050 would find it difficult to predict what it will be like then. That is not an argument against having a long-term policy, but an argument for being ambitious and visionary, and realising that there could be a completely different electricity generation and distribution system in 50 years' time.
The Trade and Industry Committee made some important points about the gas industry and the use of resources from the North sea, on which two of my colleagues commented. It made some other points about dealing with access charges for embedded generators, the issues related to two-way metering, which the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown mentioned, and about related issues to do with micro combined heat and power. I hope that the Minister will take those points into account to a greater extent than he did in the reply given to the Committee.
Having read the Minister's response and what is in the White Paper about the new electricity trading arrangements, it seems to me that the problems outlined by the Committee in relation to the new electricity trading arrangements have not been addressed. It also seems to me that by promoting the new British electricity trading and transmission arrangements in an enlarged version for the BETTA, we could in fact get worser. I hope that the Minister will re-examine the operation of that regulatory system, which is making it harder than it need be for embedded and small generators to prosper in the UK.
The Environmental Audit Committee also made some important points. A key point was the need for the Government to resolve the conflict between market liberalisation and cheap power on the one hand, and, on

347WH
the other, meeting our Kyoto objectives and ensuring that there is long-term investment in the industry. At the core of that is what will happen to Ofgem. I hope that the Minister is discussing a range of issues with the new director, with the intention of giving Ofgem, or the office for energy markets, a clear and precise brief on what should be done.
The Science and Technology Committee report draws attention to the difficulties in balancing the investment in research in various energy fields. I should like to pick up on what the Minister said about the relative investment in renewables and nuclear energy. There is scope for discussion about how much investment has gone into which and for how long, but any reasonable assessment would say that over the past 20-odd years, the nuclear industry has received massively more investment and research than renewables. I do not want the Minister to pick winners. I have supported him when he has made that point over the years. However, we need some each-way bets, and, as they say, "If you're not in it, you can't win it". We must ensure that research is done in those sectors that have a reasonable prospect of success.
Bob Spink: Surely, we should be picking winners and focusing on the prime technologies that are most suited to our economy and which have the greatest potential, not throwing research efforts and resources into CHP and photovoltaics, as we can take advantage of research carried out by Japan and other countries, where it is much more advanced. We should concentrate on picking winners in wet and wind technology and continue support for the short and medium-term nuclear industry.
Mr. Stunell: That intervention was interesting, but, unfortunately, completely wrong.
The energy picture is complex; complex issues need comprehensive solutions and a coherent top management, which mean changes in the decision-making structure. I hope that the Minister and the Department will be at the top of pyramid, but it must be more substantial. We need to make rapid progress, which means that we must improve the delivery systems and look thoroughly at the future of the new technologies. The Minister is doing his best, but I hope he will do more and concentrate on delivery.
5.11 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan: The debate has been so interesting and so well informed that I am going to go away and study the three valuable reports in greater detail. I must tell the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) that I have not read the footnote report but I will try and get through it, although it may be somewhat indigestible.
I agree with almost nothing that Welsh nationalists do or say, especially on devolution, as my father was born in Llandaff and all my family came from Wales. However, the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) was most interesting and I may plagiarise what he said, which is the sincerest form of flattery.
The debate has not been partisan except in one case; I will not dwell on the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner), who is the only Member I have
348WH
ever heard talk out his own Bill in the House. However, he may recall that Mrs. Thatcher was a chemist and the first world leader to recognise the problem of climate change, about which she made some interesting speeches in the late 1980s, aided by Sir Crispin Tickell. She was one of the driving forces behind the first world summit in Rio in 1992, which she did not attend because she was no longer Prime Minister by then. I will say one nice thing about the hon. Gentleman: he raised the issue of net metering, which I, too, think is valuable.
I have only recently taken on my portfolio and it is useful to hear what is being said on the subject. The Minister has a great and genuine interest in the matter; I do not want to make a habit of being nice to him, but after he mentioned the point of order in the Standing Committee on the poll tax I am wary of being critical of him. I shall try not to be too partisan.
I have a great interest in the subject and you may recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you became chairman of what is now the all-party group on renewable and sustainable energy 11 years ago, and I became vice-chairman. I have a photovoltaic roof, which is extremely expensive, and I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for the taxpayers' money that the Department of Trade and Industry gave me to help install it, although it still cost me an arm and a leg. I also have an anenometer on my land because I am considering wind generation, which will be useful. I have a track record on the issue. [Interruption.] I did not hear that intervention.
Dr. Gibson: How many cars have you got?
Mr. Robathan: Dozens, but not nearly as many as the Deputy Prime Minister, my great friend.
None of us believes that renewable energy is the whole answer, but the subject is of immense importance. If anyone has doubts about climate change they should assess what is happening to our weather; for example, it gets sticky when it used not to. I have a farm in my constituency, where I planted several acres of trees, so I know that it did not rain between the end of February and Easter, which was at the end of April. That is not usual; there was snow in Jerusalem at the same time. Climate change is certainly happening. People may dispute why, but I think it is obvious.
The Opposition are not terribly impressed with the White Paper, although I do not want to be partisan. We like the aspirations, but the hon. Member for Ochil said that it was a picture of terrain. Actually it was a picture of a lot of wind generators and the setting sun—I hope that that is not meant to be important either. There is much that is good in it and the aspirations are good. Other hon. Members have mentioned efficiency, which is enormously important, as is fuel poverty. I spent 18 months living in a damp farmhouse which I bought on a farm. Anyone who has lived in a really damp house knows the problems: one cannot heat it and one gets mould on one's clothes and everything else in the cupboards. When we came to move out of the farmhouse, some of the pictures in the cupboards fell apart.

349WH
Renewables are important. Some of the conclusions put forward by the Science and Technology Committee and others are extremely sensible. I do not know about wave energy; the Minister has been somewhat disparaging about it—so far.
Mr. Wilson: I must take issue with that comment. Far from being disparaging, I am very supportive, but I am determined to be realistic. Only by being realistic are we going to get over the cusp of our perpetual research and development and into commercial application.
Mr. Robathan: I do not disagree with the Minister on that point. The issue of nuclear fusion is very interesting, as are fuel cells and hydrogen. If I were to place a bet, it would be on hydrogen dominating the energy market in 100 years' time, but I have no idea. I do not have the scientific background of some. But we will not reach the targets for renewable energy—I think we all know that. It is a pity that the Government will not come clean and say that they will work even harder towards them, but they are not likely to be reached.
With the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) I am vice-president of the CHPA. We know what harm has been done by NETA to CHP. It is deeply depressing that the Conservative Government put down a target of 5 GW by 2000 which has not been reached; we are still only at 4.8 GW. The chances of meeting a target of 10 GW by 2010 are at the moment risible. We would like to meet it and so while Government policy has undermined that, it can change.
I agree with the hon. Member for Ochil and my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), who mentioned the way that NETA has pushed down prices. That is valuable. Of course we want efficiency in generation and distribution, and no waste in prices. But perhaps prices have been pushed down at great cost to the environment.
We have concerns about what the White Paper says about security of supply. If gas is to come from the Caspian sea, or if oil or gas have to come from north Africa, that is worrying. Mention has also been made of California. We should remember in our own lifetimes the petrol queues in the 1973–74 oil crisis. Our constituents do not like queuing for petrol and being restricted in whether they can switch on the lights or drive. It is foolish for anyone in any way to disparage the importance of security of supply.
There is a huge medium-term problem. I have a few quotes about the energy White Paper. I can quote only from the Science and Technology Committee report because it is the only one that has come out since the energy White Paper was published. It says that the White Paper ducks the central issue of whether to provide a future for the nuclear power industry. In the summer, it says, the Government's decision to delay the decision on nuclear power leaves the UK with an energy shortfall which will be made up only with fossil fuels.
I am not a great fan of nuclear power. I am interested in the disparate comments made about nuclear energy here. The Conservative party believes that the decision has been put off because it is not a popular decision. I regret that, because it is an important decision. I do not think putting off decisions until after the next general election is necessarily a good way to proceed.
350WH
[Interruption.] I am not making any judgment one way or the other. It was not Mrs. Thatcher who introduced nuclear energy, but a fellow called Anthony Wedgwood Benn. It was that great champion of the left who was behind nuclear energy. That said, I am not against nuclear energy, and we all know that it could be a tremendous boon to the world.
We do not pretend that energy policy is easy, but the White Paper is inadequate. I think that it was published with the Greens slightly in mind, and I count myself as a Green, although not as an anorak. In an article in the Friends of the Earth magazine, the person who was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry this morning—I do not know whether she still is—wrote:
?The white paper contains no plans to build new nuclear power stations."
However, the Greens are not impressed. People other than those who support nuclear power have also seen that there is a hole in the White Paper.
To close rather swiftly, the Science and Technology Committee rightly concludes that
"the Government's structures for energy are inadequate".
For the sake of the country and the planet, we want better structures for energy. We look forward to this committed Minister—if he is still the Minister—telling us how he will put them in place.
5.20 pm
The Minister for Energy and Construction (Mr. Brian Wilson): I have enjoyed the debate, and I congratulate the three Chairmen—the three tenors—and their respective Select Committees on their reports. Like all the energy debates in which I have participated in the past couple of years, this one has been civilised, well informed and generally bipartisan. Clearly, some views cross all party lines.
Two years ago, when I took up my post, I had no great knowledge of energy policy. Frankly, what one pays attention to in government becomes very compartmentalised and I must admit that I had never heard of NETA, who was about to become a close acquaintance.
For the past couple of years, there has been a process of perpetual consultation. I came to my post just as the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution set the 60 per cent. target for reducing carbon emissions in its valuable report. That led to consultation on the performance and innovation unit's study, which was followed by the PIU report. Then—I never quite understood why the process should be so lengthy—there was a consultation on the back of that. That led to the White Paper, although we are not consulting on that. Rather, we are deliberating on its content and on the reports that flowed from it. So, whatever else anyone says about the past couple of years, there has been no shortage of consultation.
I very much agree with those hon. Members who say that now is the time to deliver. We can have as many consultations and White Papers as we like, but what matters is the delivery. When it comes to energy, people begin to take notice only when something goes wrong with the delivery. So, for many reasons, there is a huge shared interest in getting it right.

351WH
I am not sure which of the Select Committee Chairmen said that the White Paper was big on vision, but he was absolutely right. It is a landmark vision to make the environment and a 60 per cent. reduction in carbon emissions one of the four pillars of energy policy. The challenge is to deliver on that.
If I divided the remaining time between the three reports, they would get two and a half minutes each, so I shall not do that. Instead, I shall make some general remarks, although I promise all hon. Members that they will get replies to their specific questions.
Let me start with the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), who asked which of the technologies was my favourite. That might not be the most scientific way of approaching the subject, but it suits me quite well. The answer is renewables. That is because I have been interested in them for many, many years, since long before I ever thought that I would be in this job. I believe in them, I believe that they should be delivered, and I believe that we should be doing more. It has been a great privilege to be in a position in which I can do something towards that.
There are two dangers to renewables. One is expecting too much of them and making unrealistic forecasts and targets. If that is done without a substantial back-up for delivery, or if the setting of targets becomes a substitute for delivery, the targets will become self-defeating. There is a huge amount to be done if the targets are to be met. It has to be done not by one Minister, Department or interest group, but across the board—by Government and the agencies related to Government firing on all cylinders. It has to be done through the planning laws, by the Ministry of Defence, by the regulator, by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and by every relevant agency. If that coherent effort is not made, we will end up with targets but with no delivery. If we go beyond the 10 per cent. without knowing what the implications are, we will lead in the wrong direction; we will raise expectations but the system will not be able to cope.
The other crucial thing is that there is no point in generating electricity, whatever the source, unless there is a way of sending it. Particularly with the British electricity trading and transmission arrangements Bill coming up, unless the regulatory system is going to accommodate the investment and the incentives to
352WH
generate renewable energy from the parts of the country where the potential for it is greatest, much of what we are counting on in the White Paper will be frustrated.
Wave power has been mentioned a few times. Let me endorse it. I have great belief in it. When I came into this job, there was no budget line for wave and tidal in the renewable strategy. Some of the figures will have to be revisited because the money has often gone to where the lobbying is strongest rather than to where the potential is greatest. I retain that belief in wave and tidal to deliver in the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) fell into a trap when he said that the most important thing in the world is carbon reduction. Then he thought again and said that it was the second most important thing because really the most important thing is shutting down the nuclear industry. A few years from now, there will he a big reassessment. If carbon reduction really is the most important thing people might, without any detriment or prejudice to renewables, energy efficiency or anything else, see nuclear as a potential ally rather than as a confirmed enemy. At the moment, our emphasis is on renewables and energy efficiency to reach the goals.
I shall touch briefly on coal. Much of what has been said has been consensual and cross party. However, some energy matters are political. Coal is political and always will be. The fact that we have been able to deal with some of the legacy of issues associated with coal has been a source of satisfaction. More than that, whenever possible we have invested in the coal industry to give it a future. In the past two years, no pit has closed because we have turned down an application for support. The investment aid scheme that we have in place will ensure that that continues.
I strongly agree with what has been said about clean coal technology. It is neglected. Its potential in terms of carbon reduction is greater on a global scale than all the renewables in Christendom. We should invest in it domestically and that will open a huge global market to us. When we talk about nuclear against renewables or renewables against coal or anything else, we miss the point. The whole strategy as clearly set out, whether complacently or otherwise, in the White Paper is that by 2020 we shall be overwhelmingly dependent on imported gas. That might be all right. It is possible to be sanguine about it. However, many people have not woken up to that fact and we must continue to be vigilant in ensuring our sources of supply.
It being half-past Five o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

TREASURY

  Gulf (Military Presence)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost of maintaining a military presence in the Persian Gulf in the last three months. [118671]

  Mr. Boateng
  It would be premature to make such an estimate but we expect the costs of the military campaign to be covered by the £3 billion reserve announced by the Chancellor in the Budget.

  Growth Prospects
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his current assessment is of growth prospects in(a) the UK and (b) the euro area. [118673]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government published their latest forecasts for the UK economy in the Budget on April 9. We forecast:The UK economy to grow by 2 to 2½ per cent. this year, rising to 3 to 3½ per cent. next year.
  The euro area economy to grow by 1 per cent. this year, rising to 2¼ per cent. next year.

  Competitiveness
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had since the Budget with representatives of manufacturing industry regarding competitiveness. [118674]

  Mr. Boateng
  Treasury Ministers meet regularly with manufacturing representatives to discuss a wide range of issues and this Government has introduced a series of measures to promote business efficiency, investment and competitiveness.

  BCCI
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Inland Revenue's action relating to the former employees of BCCI. [118675]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I understand that Revenue officials are continuing to provide guidance on the tax aspects of the proposed BCCI settlement, and I hope it will prove possible to finalise the tax position of ex-employees in the near future.

  Tax Credits Helplines
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what support is being given to staff working on the tax credits helplines to enable them to deal with the workload. [118676]
  982W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The revenue has been able to support its staff employed in the Tax Credit Contact Centres by:Providing an initial and comprehensive training package followed by additional, supplementary training as the workload has changed.
  Backing this up with rapid escalation processes for more complex or difficult calls.
  Bringing several hundred additional staff onto the helpline when the number of calls started to increase in early April.
  Managers working closely and quickly with staff and their trade unions to resolve any local pressures or concerns that may develop.

  Aid Statistics
  David Cairns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress the UK is making on the target ratio of aid to national income. [118677]

  John Healey
  The Government remain fully committed to reaching the UN target of an official development assistance to Gross National Income ratio (ODA/GNI ratio) of 0.7 per cent. In the 2002 Spending Review the Government made substantial increases to the aid budget. The UK's level of official development assistance will be increased to 0.33 per cent. by 2003–04, up from 0.26 per cent. in 1997, and will reach 0.40 per cent. of GNI by 2005–06. This is the largest ever increase in UK aid and represents a 93 per cent. real terms increase since 1997.

  Aid effectiveness is also important as well as aid volumes. We are committed to redirecting the development assistance budget to the poorest countries, particularly those with effective governments pursuing high growth and pro-poor economic and social policies. In addition, the Government have untied all their aid as from 1 April 2001.

  Bank of England
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what difference has been recorded in the present value of the reserves in consequence of the instruction to the Bank of England to sell gold and to invest in particular currencies. [118679]

  John Healey
  The restructuring of the reserves portfolio announced in May 1999 was a long-term, prudent restructuring to reduce the risk of over-exposure to a single asset. As such it is inappropriate to measure gains or losses resulting from fluctuations in market values on a particular day or over a short-term period.

  Once account is taken of all the elements of the restructuring programme, including earnings on foreign currency assets purchased from the proceeds of the sale, the annualised return on the assets invested in (from the sales of gold to the end of May 2003) was approximately 9 per cent. per annum in US dollar terms.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has for further debt relief to be agreed by the G8 group of countries. [118680]
  983W
  John Healey
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Chancellor earlier today to my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke).

  Cancer
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes have been recorded over the past 20 years in the(a) survival and (b) mortality rates in men diagnosed with (i) prostate, (ii) lung, (iii) bowel and (iv) testicular cancer; and what geographical trends have been identified in the incidence of cancer in men. [118562]

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

  Letter from J. Pullinger to Mr Nicholas Winterton, dated 12 June 2003:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question concerning what changes have been recorded over the last 20 years in the (a) survival and (b) mortality rates in men diagnosed with (i) prostate, (ii) lung, (iii) bowel and (iv) testicular cancer; and what geographical trends have been identified in the incidence of cancer in men. I am replying in his absence. (118562)
  Long term trends in cancer incidence, mortality, prevalence and survival for prostate, lung, bowel and testicular cancer, and all other major cancers, for England and Wales have been published in Cancer Trends in England and Wales 1950–19991. This is available on the National Statistics website at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_health/cancertrends_5099.pdf
  This publication includes the latest available cancer survival analyses for England and Wales. Survival rates for major cancers by sex and age-group are presented, with trends for cases diagnosed in the early 1970s up to those diagnosed in the early 1990s.
  The Office for National Statistics is currently collaborating with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine to update the cancer survival statistics in this volume with figures for the 20 commonest cancers in England and Wales. This will cover adult patients diagnosed during 1991–99 and followed up to the end of 2001. The results will be published later this year.
  The publication Cancer Trends in England and Wales 1950–19991 contains analyses of mortality from all major cancers over the period 1950–1999. Variations in cancer incidence by geographical area within the UK are also described in this publication.
  Data on cancer incidence by geographical area for 1998 and 1999, and mortality for 2000 and 2001 are available on the National Statistics website.
  1 Quinn M. Babb P, Brock A, et al. Cancer Trends in England and Wales 1950–1999. Series SMPS No. 66. London: Office for National Statistics, 2001.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the working hours of the local Swansea Customs team have been spent(a) in their home areas and (b) outside their home areas during the past two years. [118533]

  John Healey
  Over the past two years the Swansea Customs team have spent approximately 40 per cent. of their operational time in Swansea. Of the 60 per cent. of the time they spent elsewhere, the majority was at Cardiff International airport.
  984W
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what seizures have been made by the Swansea local Customs team in(a) their own area and (b) outside their own area in the past two years. [118534]

  John Healey
  The Swansea Customs team have, in the last two years, made 19 seizures in Swansea. These included 156,750 cigarettes, some small seizures of hand rolled tobacco and spirits and two knives.

  Operating elsewhere over the same period, the team made a further 48 seizures mostly at Cardiff International airport. These comprised 633,520 cigarettes, some small seizures of hand rolled tobacco and a small number of other minor seizures.

  The team made no Class A drug seizures over the two-year period.

  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans there are for further co-operative working between the Customs and Excise departments of the UK and Eire; [118538]

  (2) what meetings have taken place in the last two years between the Customs and Excise Service of the Republic of Ireland and the UK Customs and Excise concerning co-operative working to tackle (a) drugs smuggling, (b) cigarette smuggling, (c) oil smuggling and (d) illegal immigration. [118539]

  John Healey
  Customs work closely with the Republic of Ireland (as well as other member states) on a number of issues and meet with them regularly, both bilaterally and as part of larger meetings.

  These meetings take place at both the high level to discuss strategic plans for future working and also at operational levels to discuss specific cases. There is consequently a regular flow of information between UK Customs and Excise and their Republic of Ireland counterparts in relation to suspect drug consignments and cash related movements, cigarette smuggling and oils smuggling.

  Illegal immigration is not an assigned matter for either Service.

  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the role of Customs officers is in implementing anti-terrorism measures. [118540]

  John Healey
  Customs has prime responsibility for controls on the movement of goods into and out of the United Kingdom, including the detection of terrorist material. A significant part of the £330 million announced by the Chancellor in the Budget for counter-terrorism purposes will be used to equip Customs with new technology and staff measures to assist their detection effort.

  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many times in the past two years the Customs and Excise National Strike Force has undertaken operational duties in west Wales. [118546]

  John Healey
  The National Strike Force was deployed to Wales 16 times over the last two years. On at least 12 occasions they were operating in west Wales.

  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost was of paying travel and subsistence allowances to customs officers serving in the South East
  985W
  Region Enforcement Team in (a) 1999, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002; and what estimate he has made of the cost of paying travel and subsistance allowances to customs officers serving in the South East Region Enforcement Team in (i) 2003, (ii) 2004 and (iii) 2005. [116731]

  John Healey
  There is not, and never has been, a South East Region Enforcement Team in Customs and Excise. Following changes in customs' management structure in 2001, an enlarged Law Enforcement South Region was created. Travel, subsistence and other expenses are paid in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Management Code.

  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the working hours of the local Pembroke Customs team have been spent(a) in and (b) outside their home areas during the past two years. [118530]

  John Healey
  During the last two years, the Pembroke Customs team have spent 80 per cent. of their time in Pembroke and Fishguard and 20 per cent. elsewhere, largely at Cardiff International airport.

  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what seizures have been made by the Pembroke local Customs team(a) in and (b) outside their own area in the past two years. [118531]

  John Healey
  The Pembroke Customs team have made one significant seizure, of 1.2 million cigarettes, in Pembroke in the past two years. This seizure was a result of a specific operation, based on intelligence gathered from outside Wales. In addition, the team made a small number of minor seizures of cigarettes, hand rolled tobacco, spirits and beer, in Pembroke and Fishguard.

  Elsewhere, over the last two years, the Pembroke Customs team seized 481,290 cigarettes at Cardiff International Airport, and made a small number of minor seizures of cigarettes and hand rolled tobacco elsewhere.

  The Pembroke Customs team made no significant drug seizures over the past two years.

  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what seizures have been made by the Customs and Excise National Strike Force in west Wales in the last two years. [118532]

  John Healey
  The National Strike Force have been deployed to Wales 16 times in the past two years. Their seizures have included £500,000 cash and over 5.6 million in cigarettes in west Wales and the borders.

  Electoral Statistics
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the 100 wards with the greatest fall in electorate over the last three years, giving the(a) percentage fall, (b) total numbers of electors and (c) political make-up in each case; [118903]

  (2) if he will list the 100 constituencies with the greatest fall in electorate over the last three years by (a) percentage and (b) total number. [118904]

  John Healey
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  986W
  Letter from John Pullinger to Chris Ruane, dated 12 June 2003:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent questions concerning the 100 constituencies and wards with the greatest fall in electorate over the last three years. I am replying in his absence. (118903, 118904)
  I am placing in the House of Commons Library a table showing the percentage change and total number change of the 100 parliamentary constituencies with the greatest fall in electorate over the period 16 February 1999 to 1 December 2002. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) did not publish electoral data for parliamentary constituencies as at 16 February 2000 and this is why figures for 1999 have been used.
  ONS does not produce electoral statistics on ward boundaries. The lowest geography at which electoral statistics are published is parliamentary constituencies. Electoral statistics on ward boundaries are only available from each individual local authority.

  Equitable Life
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Penrose Inquiry into Equitable Life is expected to report. [118831]

  Mr. Boateng
  The timetable for his report is a matter for Lord Penrose. He has said that he expects to report to Treasury Ministers later in the summer.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Ombudsman's inquiries are outstanding pending the conclusion of the Penrose Inquiry. [118832]

  Mr. Boateng
  This is a matter for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (the Ombudsman) who, as an Officer of the House, is independent of the Government.

  Taxation of Savings Directive
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is his Department's policy to accept the ruling of the President of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities that UK Overseas Territories are under no legal requirement to implement the EU Savings Tax Directive. [118517]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell), 10 June 2003,Official Report, column 748W.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the constitutional arrangements governing the relationship between the UK and UK overseas territories with regard to financial policy. [118518]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) on 3 June 2003,Official Report, column 196W.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is his policy that overseas and dependent territories will make the final decision on their implementation of EU Savings Tax Directive. [118519]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The purpose of the EU Taxation of Savings Directive is to ensure that UK and other EU residents pay the tax due on all their savings income. All of the relevant associated and dependent territories, apart from the Cayman Islands, have made commitments that they will apply the same measures as in the Directive. The UK will do its utmost, within the
  987W
  framework of its constitutional arrangements, to ensure that appropriate measures in respect of all the relevant dependent or associated territories are in place in time for the Directive to come into effect from 1 January 2005.

  G8 Summit
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress made at the G8 Summit(a) on greater debt relief and (b) financing for development. [118413]

  John Healey
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave in the Chamber earlier today to my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), and my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) and for Conwy (Mrs. Williams).

  Illegal Meat Importation
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Customs and Excise staff will be employed in Wales to implement the new legislation on illegal meat importation; and where they will be based. [118537]

  John Healey
  Customs' new anti-smuggling teams targeted at illegal meat imports are mobile and will be deployed at any UK port or airport. Locations of their deployment will be varied according to risk. All anti-smuggling staff who cover Wales now include illegal meat among their responsibilities.

  Intelligence Officers (Wales)
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether extra intelligence officers will be employed in Wales to counteract the loss of front-line anti-smuggling officers. [118535]

  John Healey
  Customs will maintain the current intelligence resource levels, but will deploy them differently to combat the changing nature of criminality in Wales. They will work more closely with partner law enforcement agencies to focus on the threats posed whether they are drugs, other illegal goods or terrorism. In particular, they are joining with South Wales, Gwent and Dyfed Powys police forces to form a new Joint Intelligence Cell in Bridgend. They will make use of constant quality intelligence sources, from all over the world, and be able to determine the necessary Customs response to call upon mobile teams whether the threat is inland or at ports or airports.

  Moreover, under Customs' plans there will be an overall increase in the deployment of mobile teams to Wales, from a contingent of 100 officers based in Wales and the West Midlands, supported by the National Strike Force. This capability to deploy larger numbers of officers on unpredictable targeted operations will provide a real deterrence to professional smugglers and bootleggers.

  Postal Services (VAT)
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce VAT on postal services. [118310]
  988W
  John Healey
  The European Commission has recently published proposals to amend the provisions of the Sixth VAT Directive concerning the VAT arrangements applicable to postal services. Postal services provided by the universal service provider, Royal Mail, are currently exempt from VAT, and the Government believe that the vital social role played by the universal postal service should continue to be reflected in the tax system. The Government are therefore opposed to VAT on stamps, and will make this clear in negotiations on the proposals. Amendments to the Sixth VAT Directive must be agreed unanimously by member states.

  Rosyth
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of Customs and Excise operations deployed to monitor ferry arrivals and departures through Rosyth, during each month since the service commenced. [118313]

  John Healey
  Since the service commenced Customs officers have met every ferry arrival. Departures have been monitored according to risk based on intelligence.

  Unitary Authority Workers' Earnings
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of full-time workers in(a) Scotland, (b) each of the unitary local authority areas in Scotland and (c) Great Britain have hourly earnings gross pay (i) including and (ii) excluding overtime, below (A) £7.41, (B) £5.55 and (C) £4.20 in the categories (1) male manual, (2) male non-manual, (3) all male workers, (4) female manual, (5) female non-manual, (6) all female workers, (7) all manual, (8) all non-manual and (9) all workers. [118711]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Annabelle Ewing, dated 12 June 2003:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on the distribution of average hourly earnings for workers in Great Britain, Scotland and the unitary authorities in Scotland. I am replying in his absence. (118711)
  I have arranged for the data requested to be placed in the House of Commons Library. The information provided shows the proportion of people earning below the different thresholds you listed, both including overtime (Table 1) and excluding overtime (Table 2).
  The NES can provide earnings data for small geographical areas. However, the release of NES data is restricted to figures that are derived from a sufficiently large sample of employees, and have an acceptable level of accuracy and I have provided the available data for Scotland, the unitary authorities in Scotland and Great Britain only for those areas where the samples are large enough. These are based on the 2002 NES, the latest survey for which data are available.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the(a) weekly median earnings and (b) distribution of earnings are for those earning (i) under the point below which 10 per cent.of earners fall and (ii) the point above which 10 per cent. of earners exceed, broken down by (A) all manual, (B) all non-manual, (C) all workers, (D) male manual, (E) male non-manual, (F) all male workers, (G) female manual,

  989W
  (H) female non-manual and (I) all female workers in (1) Scotland and (2) each of the unitary local authority areas in Scotland. [118712]

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

  Letter from C. Mowl to Annabelle Ewing, dated 12 June 2003:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the distribution of weekly earnings for workers in Scotland and the unitary authorities in Scotland. I am replying in his absence. (118712)
  I refer you to the answer given to your previous question 99978, Official Report No. 64, col 541, which contains the information requested.
  The April 2003 New Earnings Survey data is expected to be published in mid-October 2003.

  World Bank/International Monetary Fund
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on reform of representation of poor countries on the World Bank and IMF. [118414]

  John Healey
  In our 2000 White Paper—"Eliminating World Poverty: Making Globalisation Work for the Poor"—the Government made a commitment to strengthen the voice of developing countries in the international system. We are actively pursuing this agenda in three broad ways both at the IMF and World Bank.

  Firstly, strengthening developing country offices in the IMF and World Bank. Many of these offices suffer from a lack of capacity, combined with a heavy workload. That is why, earlier this year, we pushed for the provision of extra staff to the Sub-Saharan African offices. This was subsequently agreed at both the Fund and Bank. We also support the provision of more training opportunities, improved links between Washington-based delegations and their Capitals and the creation of a Fund that these offices can draw on to finance analysis.

  Secondly, we actively encourage the two institutions to recognise their own role in strengthening the representation of developing countries, for example through increased staff diversity.

  Thirdly, increasing developing country representation and voting rights on the Executive Board. The UK believes that the issues of developing country representation on the Executive Board—particularly for Africa—and increasing the basic vote, both merit serious consideration.

  All of these issues are being discussed at both the IMF and World Bank and the UK will continue to push for early and substantive progress.

  David Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the need for greater representation for poor countries on(a) the World Bank and (b) the International Monetary Fund. [118678]

  John Healey
  The Department for International Development and the Treasury continually assess the effectiveness of the IMF and World Bank. And a central 990W
  pillar of our efforts to increase their effectiveness has been to encourage greater developing country ownership of policy reforms and decisions.

  Experience suggests that when countries 'own' their policies, they are more likely to implement them. That is why both IMF and World Bank resources are increasingly being used in support of country-led strategies, such as the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers.

  This ownership agenda also extends to the institutions themselves. In our 2000 White Paper—"Eliminating World Poverty: Making Globalisation Work for the Poor"—the Government made a commitment to strengthen the voice of developing countries in the international system. The need to address this problem was subsequently endorsed by all UN member states at the International Conference on Financing for Development in March 2002.

  Since then the IMF and World Bank have been actively progressing this agenda, most recently at their spring meetings in April. The UK has strongly supported this work and will continue to push for early and substantive progress.

  World Poverty
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contribution the UK is making towards meeting the 2015 targets for reducing world poverty. [117934]

  John Healey
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) on 11 June 2003,Official Report, column 754W.

  World Summit on Sustainable Development
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which United Kingdom commitments arising from the World Summit on Sustainable Development(a) have been incorporated into the Department's existing delivery plan for Service Delivery Agreements and (b) will be incorporated in its delivery plan for Service Delivery Agreement in advance of the 2004 Spending Review. [113875]

  John Healey
  The Chancellor and I welcome the outcome and commitments made at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) last year, and will work with other Government Departments and in the international community to meet them.

  In relation to the 2003–06 Spending Review period, the Treasury has adopted a specific Service Delivery Agreement (SDA 10.1) to work with other Departments and with other EU partners to appraise the sustainable development implications of policy proposals. Although the Treasury's current Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets do not specifically refer to WSSD commitments, as they were agreed before the Summit, PSA 4 is relevant to WSSD commitments. It reads:
  [To] promote UK economic prospects by pursuing increased productivity and efficiency in the EU, international financial stability and increased global prosperity, including especially protecting the most vulnerable.
  991W
  Fulfilling this objective includes promoting increased global prosperity and social justice, through working to increase the number of countries, including the poorest, successfully integrated into the global economy, making progress on debt relief through the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative and progress towards the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals.

  Decisions as to what may be incorporated into delivery plans in advance of the 2004 Spending Review have not yet been reached.

PRIME MINISTER

  Inquiries
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Prime Minister how many(a) public and (b) judicial inquiries the Government have set up into events which took place (i) before and (ii) after May 1997; and how much they have so far cost. [117933]
  992W
  The Prime Minister
  Since May 1997 two inquiries have been established under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921: the Bloody Sunday Inquiry (1998) under Lord Saville and the Shipman Inquiry (2000) under Dame Janet Smith DBE. The latest available costs are £107.6 million and £11.75 million respectively.

  There have been a number of inquiries of different forms established since May 1997 either under other statutory provisions or on an ad hoc, non-statutory basis, dealing with events both before and after 1997. Examples include:
  The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry (established 1997), under Sir William McPherson;
  The BSE Inquiry (1997), under Lord Phillips;
  The Ladbroke Grove Inquiry (1999) under Lord Cullen;
  The Royal Liverpool Children's Inquiry (1999) under Mr. Michael Redfern QC.
  There have also been a large number of other inquiries under various statutes, for example planning inquiries, inquiries into road schemes and inquiries into local health service issues.

  A comprehensive list of all inquiries and their costs is not maintained centrally.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what further action he will take to ensure that the common agricultural policy and international trade rules are reformed in order to promote trade for poor countries. [118302]

  Hilary Benn
  As it stands, the EU common agricultural policy imposes high costs on developing countries and is unsustainable as EU enlargement becomes operational. We are committed to reaching agreement by June on the current proposals for reform of the common agricultural policy, as a first important step towards broader EU agriculture reforms in future.

  Agreement on EU CAP reform and movement of the US position on export credits and food aid are key to ensuring a successful outcome in Cancun. DFID is working hard—both through officials' and high-level meetings—to ensure that the WTO agriculture negotiations don't stall and that current polarisation is overcome. Our objective is a set of trade rules which meet the commitments made in Doha to making this round a true "development" round, by taking adequate account of the special needs of developing countries.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what proposals his Department has to encourage greater involvement of poor countries in the decision-making process of debt relief initiatives. [118428]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK was influential in getting agreement, at the 1999 Annual Meetings of the World bank and IMF, to the consultation process on the design of the enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative being widened to include developing countries. In order to ensure developing country involvement in discussions about the delivery of debt relief, we and other donor countries are co-financing the HIPC Ministerial Network, as part of the HIPC Capacity Building Project. This network, which held its first meeting in Copenhagen in November 1999, brings together, once or twice a year, Finance Ministers and senior officials from all of the HIPC countries to discuss issues relating to the design and implementation of the HIPC Initiative. These meetings help to inform our own views on debt issues. The Commonwealth HIPC Forum also provides an important platform for Ministers from HIPC countries to discuss matters of mutual interest, and has stimulated wider debate within the Commonwealth, as well as within the International Financial Institutions themselves. The UK also contributed to the recent review of the HIPC Initiative by the Operations Evaluations Department (OED) of the World Bank, and funded two meetings between the evaluators and HIPC representatives, to allow HIPC countries to feed in their views. The OED report has now been published.

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will make a statement on the purpose of the Interim Emergency Multinational Force to be deployed to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, with particular reference to disarming the militia groups in Ituri province. [118471]

  Hilary Benn
  The objectives of the Interim Emergency Multinational Force (IEMF) are to assist the UN by providing a short-term interim force to enable the reinforcement of the UN MONUC forces in Bunia in the Ituri province. The IEMF aims to contribute to the security of Bunia in order to allow the Ituri Interim Administration to function and improve the humanitarian situation. It also aims to protect the airport and the internally displaced persons in the camps in Bunia and, if the situation requires it, contribute to the safety of the population and of UN personnel in the town. The disarming of militia groups, most of which are outside Bunia, will not be part of the IEMF's mandate.

  Fair Trade
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what initiatives he will bring forward at the September World Trade Organisation's ministerial meeting in Mexico in order to promote trade for poor countries; and if he will make a statement. [118303]

  Hilary Benn
  The EU is committed to giving developing countries better trading opportunities through greater access to both its agricultural and non-agricultural markets by reducing tariff barriers, tackling all forms of export subsidies and substantially reducing trade-distorting domestic support. The Government are working with its partners, both in the EU and internationally, to ensure that developing countries gain real benefits from the Doha round of World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations. Critical to this effort will be securing a successful outcome at the WTO Ministerial Conference in Cancun in September. This will require real progress on the issues that matter most developing countries such as agriculture, TRIPS and public health, and special and differential treatment.

  In addition, the Government are funding a variety of initiatives to help developing countries to set their own trade policies to reduce poverty. This includes improving developing countries' ability to negotiate favourable deals in trade negotiations, helping them interpret trade agreements, and supporting them in taking advantage of new international trading opportunities. To this end, the government have committed £45 million to trade-related capacity building since 1998.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development whether he will meet a delegation from CAFOD to discuss Trade Justice during the week commencing 23 June 2003. [118304]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is hosting an open day to discuss trade and development issues on 26 June 2003. All members of the UK Trade Network—a grouping of non-governmental organisations working on trade and development issues of which CAFOD is a member—
  995W
  have been invited. I will be speaking to members of the UK Trade Network during the morning session and hope to meet the CAFOD delegation then.

  G8 Summit
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will make a statement on the debt relief and the Millennium Development Goals outcomes of the G8 Summit in Evian. [118429]

  Hilary Benn
  The G8 met in Evian on 1 to 3 June 2003 and discussed a number of issues relating to international development:on Africa, significant progress was made on areas such as conflict resolution. It was agreed to expand the group of Africa Personal Representatives and meet at the Africa Partners Forum in November 2003;
  the G8 supported the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, as part of wider work on corruption. We are now working towards a Conference on the Initiative in mid-June 2003;
  there was support for the International Finance Facility, which would significantly increase volumes of aid, up to 2015. Finance Ministers were asked to report by September 2003 on financing instruments, including this facility;
  there was a commitment to making the WTO Ministerial Cancun a success;
  the outcome on Access to Medicines includes some specific actions for G8 countries, which we will push forward in coming months in our country programmes;
  the UK announced a further $80 million to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, while calling for improvements in its management. Other EU countries will announce their commitments at the European Council in late June 2003; and
  the G8 renewed their commitment to eradicating polio by 2005.

  On the issue of debt relief, the G8 leaders reaffirmed their commitment to the full implementation and financing of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative. They agreed that the World bank and IMF should be asked to: identify, by their next annual meetings, the specific impediments to further progress in each country and the steps needed to tackle them; intensify their efforts to secure the full participation of all creditors by exploring further options to deal with litigation issues; and review by this coming September, the methodology for calculating the amount of 'topping up' debt relief available to countries at Completion Point based on updated cost estimates, including the impact on commodity price fluctuations, so that countries exit the HIPC process with sustainable levels of debt.

  Landmines
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if she will place copies of the most recent reports and recommendations on(a) Kosovo, (b) Cambodia and (c) Sudan by the Department's consultant adviser on mine action in the Library. [117186]

  Hilary Benn
  I will arrange for copies of the required reports to be placed in the Libraries of the House. It should be noted that these reports and the opinions expressed in them should not be interpreted as necessarily reflecting the views or policy of DFID.

  Sustainable Development
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development when the departmental strategy for sustainable development will be published; and what steps are being taken or are planned to take forward the actions outlined. [118419]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID's strategy to implement the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate was published, in accordance with the DEFRA guidelines, on our internet site at www.dfid.gov.uk in October 2002. This sets out timetables and planned activities to meet the relevant targets which have been set so far. The website information will also be updated to reflect the progress to date.

  UK Overseas Territories
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development how much was paid in aid to each UK overseas territory since 1993. [118520]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID bilateral disbursements in respect of the Overseas Territories for each of the UK financial years from 1993/94 to 2002/03 are set out in the table below. All 2002/03 figures are provisional at this stage.

  Country/Year

  £000 Total DFID Programme

  Anguilla

  1993–94

  3,271

  1994–95

  2,142

  1995–96

  1,226

  1996–97

  1,362

  1997–98

  2,520

  1998–99

  1,977

  1999–2000

  2,058

  2000–01

  2,234

  2001–02

  1,847

  2002–03 (provisional)

  1,040

  Bermuda

  1993–94

  24

  1994–95

  37

  1995–96

  30

  1996–97

  57

  1997–98

  30

  1998–99

  0

  1999–2000

  13

  2000–01

  4

  2001–02

  0

  2002–03 (provisional)

  0

  British virgin Islands

  1993–94

  1,515

  1994–95

  308

  1995–96

  592

  1996–97

  1,085

  1997–98

  604

  1998–99

  622

  1999–2000

  517

  2000–01

  186

  2001–02

  89

  2002–03 (provisional)

  90

  Cayman Islands

  1993–94

  3

  1994–95

  86

  1995–96

  21

  1996–97

  0

  1997–98

  0

  1998–99

  23

  1999–00

  18

  997W

  Country/Year

  £000 Total DFID Programme

  2000–01

  20

  2001–02

  3

  2002–03 (provisional)

  0

  Falkland Islands

  1993–94

  12

  1994–95

  88

  1995–96

  19

  1996–97

  4

  1997–98

  0

  1998–99

  0

  1999–2000

  0

  2000–01

  0

  2001–02

  0

  2002–03 (provisional)

  0

  Gibraltar

  1993–94

  142

  1994–95

  179

  1995–96

  77

  1996–97

  118

  1997–98

  54

  1998–99

  28

  1999–2000

  23

  2000–01

  27

  2001–02

  23

  2002–03 (provisional)

  6

  Montserrat

  1993–94

  5,689

  1994–95

  5,766

  1995–96

  6,554

  1996–97

  14,441

  1997–98

  37,866

  1998–99

  31,096

  1999–2000

  22,540

  2000–2001

  20,811

  2001–2002

  24,417

  2002–2003 (provisional)

  23,797

  Pitcairn Island

  1993–94

  108

  1994–95

  180

  1995–96

  203

  1996–97

  160

  1997–98

  76

  1998–99

  148

  1999–2000

  99

  2000–01

  18

  2001–02

  26

  2002–03 (provisional)

  34

  St Helena (and Tristan Da Cunha)

  1993–94

  9,057

  1994–95

  8,161

  1995–96

  9,267

  1996–97

  7,990

  1997–98

  8,765

  1998–99

  8,805

  1999–2000

  9,363

  2000–01

  10,116

  2001–02

  10,106

  2002–03 (provisional)

  8,533

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  1993–94

  10,049

  1994–95

  4,387

  1995–96

  2,674

  1996–97

  3,031

  1997–98

  2,569

  1998–99

  3,808

  1999–2000

  4,044

  2000–01

  2,848

  2001–02

  2,754

  2002–03 (provisional)

  1,528

  998W
  In addition, European Development Fund cumulative allocations to the UK Overseas territories since 1993 total some €86.33 million (about £57.55 million). This sum, some of which is still being committed to or spent on approved development activities, has been shared amongst eligible UK Overseas Territories as follows:

  Euros

  £ Sterling (approx thousands)

  Anguilla

  14,450

  9,633

  British Virgin

  4,900

  3,266

  Islands

  Cayman Islands

  1,600

  1,067

  Montserrat

  24,900

  16,600

  St Helena (and

  18,150

  12,100

  Tristan Da Cunha)

  Turks & Caicos

  16,280

  10,853

  Islands

  Falkland Islands

  3,700

  2,467

  Pitcairn Island

  2,350

  1,566

  The UK share of the above EOF allocations over the period is estimated at some €10.79 million (approximately £7.2 million).

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  3G Network
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what regulations the Department plans to introduce in conjunction with the mobile telecom industry to protect minors from adult content viewed over the 3G network. [119233]

  Mr. Timms
  The industry is in the process of drawing up a self-regulatory code of practice, which will introduce safeguards to protect minors from accessing adult content via mobile phones.

  Arbre Project
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) whether the Arbre project will qualify for bioenergy funds under the(a) Bioenergy Capital Growth Scheme and (b) Energy Crops Scheme to help farmers and foresters establish energy crops; and what representations she has received to make these grants to the Arbre project; [118405]

  (2) when the Arbre project will be in position to take willow coppice to the Vale of York; [118406]

  (3) whether farmers with contracts to supply willow coppice to the Arbre project may be compensated under the (a) Bioenergy Capital Grant Scheme and (b) Energy Crops Scheme following the plant going into liquidation. [118407]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Bioenergy Capital Grants Scheme is a joint DTI/New Opportunities Fund scheme to provide support towards the capital costs of new bioenergy plant. All of the available £66 million of funding has been allocated to 21 projects throughout the United Kingdom.
  999W
  Defra's Energy Crops Scheme provides grants to establish crops for any valid heat, combined heat and power and electricity generation end use. Grants of £280,000 have been made to plant 280 hectares of short rotation coppice (SRC) under the Energy Crops Scheme. 1,157 hectares of SRC had previously been planted under the Forestry Commission's Woodland Grant Scheme at a cost of approximately £1 million.

  Funding for the capital cost of the Arbre demonstration project has come from the European Commission and the project partners, with support for the establishment of energy crops coming from the Forestry Commission and Defra.

  DTI have not received a request for assistance from the purchasers of the Arbre plant, but have agreed to consider any proposals to minimise the technology risk of taking the plant to full operation. Any support would be from our research and development programme.

  In terms of the farmers with contracts to supply the Arbre project, that is essentially a commercial undertaking between the farmers and the owners of the plant. No compensation would be paid from the schemes mentioned.

  Defra's Energy Crops Scheme provides a one-off payment when the crop is established. It is a condition of the grant that the crop is used to produce energy. Arbre growers are setting up a producer group to harvest and market their energy crops with assistance from the Energy Crops Scheme and Objective 1 funding. The scheme does not restrict growers to supplying the Arbre plant and they can seek alternative markets.

  Whether the crops come from the Vale of York is a matter for the owners of the Arbre plant as they decide on a route to commercial operation of the plant.

  Arms Trade
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list, by year, the licences, including military and dual use ratings, granted for the export of small arms to all countries in sub-Saharan Africa. [117930]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Prior to May 1997 previous Administrations have not considered it appropriate routinely to publish information on individual licensing decisions. Since May 1997 details of all export licences issued for small arms are published by destination in the Government's Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls, copies of which are available from the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received from the UK Working Group on Arms as part of her consultation on the secondary legislation for the Export Control Act 2002. [118942]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The UK Working Group on Arms (UKWGA) has submitted two separate responses to the consultation on the Export Control Act 2002 draft secondary legislation.

  Biofuels
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which Minister in her Department is responsible for trade policy on the development of biofuels. [117590]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 9 June 2003]: As Minister for Energy, I am responsible for the development of energy generation from renewable sources including biomass. This includes both developing the home market and encouraging the industry to seek opportunities overseas. In this work I am assisted by Renewables UK, a DTI unit that I established last year. Naturally, in this I act in liaison with my hon. Friend the Minister for International Trade and Investment, with her wider responsibilities for UK Trade Policy.

  Lead responsibility within Government for the development of biofuels for transport lies with my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Transport.

  British Energy
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the recent loss announced by British Energy; how much public money has been given to support British Energy in each of the last three years; and what plans there are to continue this support during(a) 2003 and (b) 2004. [118466]

  Mr. Wilson
  The bulk of British Energy's (BE) reported loss is made up of asset write-downs. These are based on expected future cash flows of the business, as reflected in the company's restructuring plan, and consequently have already been taken into consideration when considering the on-going viability of the business.

  On 9 September 2002 the Government agreed to provide BE with a credit facility for up to £410 million in respect of its working capital requirements and cash collateral for trading in the UK and North America. On 26 September 2002 the Government agreed to extend the facility and increase it from £410 million up to £650 million. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry informed the House on 7 March 2003, Official Report, column 89WS that BE had repaid to Government all outstanding amounts under the facility. On a contingency basis the facility has been extended at a reduced level of £200 million to the earlier of 30 September 2004 or the date on which the company's restructuring plan becomes effective. As part of BE's restructuring, the Government plan to meet the cost of BE's historic nuclear fuel liabilities. This will include a payment of £175 million in financial year 2004–05 in line with the Secretary of State's statement of 28 November.

  Correspondence
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when letters from the hon. Member for Thurrock were recently received in her office; when they were referred to the Minister of State; why no holding letter has been sent to the hon. Member; and when she will make a substantive reply. [118897]
  1001W
  Ms Hewitt
  The first letter from my hon. Friend was received in my office on 6 February 2003 and was delegated to my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Construction on 7 February 2003, for him to reply on my behalf.

  A subsequent letter was received on 14 March 2003 and delegated again to the Minister for Energy and Construction. Unfortunately, due to an oversight, replies to neither letter were issued.

  I have now seen a copy of my hon. Friend's original letter, and after further consideration, it has been transferred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for reply, as the subject falls within the responsibility of his Department.

  I regret the time it has taken to process these pieces of correspondence and have asked for steps to be taken to ensure that there is no repeat of the problem.

  Energy Efficiency
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the targets she has set to improve energy efficiency within her Department; and how she intends to achieve those targets. [117713]

  Ms Hewitt
  In common with all other Government Departments, DTI is working towards the interim energy targets for the Government Estate:An on-going 1 per cent. per annum reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from buildings, expressed in terms of carbon savings. New energy targets are now being developed on an assessment of the Estate's performance against national standards. Using this information, we will set new targets for reducing our energy consumption. These targets will be central to the energy section of the Framework and will be put in place during 2003.
  Minimum of 10 per cent. of green energy is purchased by March 2008

  To help meet this target, DTI undertook an estate-wide energy audit to identify areas where further savings could be made. This resulted in the enhancement of a DTI Building Energy Management System and the installation of Inverter Variable Speed Drives.

  Other measures which contribute to this target include; ISO 14001 certified Environmental Management Systems across the DTI HQ estate; 33 per cent. of electricity in the DTI HQ estate is purchased from renewable sources; promoting environmental and energy awareness to DTI staff through 'Green Teams' who disseminate green and energy issues to their colleagues; a number of specific measures such as installation of solar film for windows.

  Energy Sources
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what resources have been allocated towards developing the production capabilities of(a) renewables and (b) alternative energy sources in each year since 1997. [116250]

  Mr. Wilson
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on 9 December 2002,Official Report, column 70W.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she has carried out to 1002W
  encourage British industry to prepare for the export potential provided by the entry of the 10 accession countries into 2004. [118353]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 10 June 2003]: I have ensured that my Department is active in promoting the benefits of enlargement to British industry.

  The DTI is working very closely with the Foreign Office, Cabinet Office and other Departments to help ensure that British industry does takes full advantage of the opportunities in the new markets.

  British Trade International is supporting a programme of 30 outward trade missions to the 10 accession states in this financial year.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research her Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the export potential provided by the 10 accession countries; and if she will make a statement in terms of the effect on GDP. [118354]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 10 June 2003]: The Department has not commissioned external research on the export potential provided by the 10 accession countries.

  The Department's officials are completing an analysis of the trade and investment impact of EU enlargement, which we intend to publish as soon as possible, but research [for CEPR 1] forecasts that enlargement will add 1.5 per cent. to the new members' GDP and boost EU GDP by 0.2 per cent. The UK's share could be worth £1.75 billion per annum.
  [1 "The costs and benefits of eastern enlargement: the impact on the EU and Central Europe" Richard E. Baldwin, Joseph F. Francois and Richard Fortes, Centre for Economic Policy Research, April 1997.]

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has for consultation with campaigners for fairer trade ahead of the 5th WTO Ministerial Conference in Cancun, Mexico. [118415]

  Ms Hewitt
  I meet regularly with representatives from civil society to discuss the Government's international trade policy. I last met with representatives from development NGOs on 21 May to discuss how we can ensure that this is a true development round.

  Campaigners for fairer trade help to raise the profile of trade and development issues. It is important that Government and campaigners for trade justice continue to work together to ensure that the Doha Development Agenda becomes a reality.

  A representative from action Aid will be part of the official UK delegation to the WTO Ministerial Conference in Cancun and, as I announced to the House last week, I have accepted an invitation from Christian Aid to visit Guatemala prior to the Cancun meeting.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the number of injuries caused by fireworks during 2002. [118241]
  1003W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The total number of persons recorded as attending hospital casualty departments in Great Britain during the 2002 bonfire night period was 1,017. This represents a decrease of 25 per cent. on the 2001 total of 1,362. There were no deaths in the 2002 bonfire night period, nor are we aware of any outside the recording period.

  Despite the welcome fall in recorded accidents, we continue to do all we can to promote safety and to prevent misuse of fireworks.

  I am arranging for copies of the injury figures together with the analytical and regional tables to be placed in the Libraries of House as well as on the DTI website: www.dti.gov.uk

  Fur Imports
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) of 13 May 2003,Official Report, column 166W, what research her Department has carried out into the effectiveness of the testing of labelling schemes dealing with the importation of cat and dog fur; and what the estimated cost is of such schemes. [118259]

  Ms Hewitt
  Mislabelling can already be prosecuted: it is an offence under the Trade Descriptions Act of 1968 to apply, by any means, false or misleading statements to goods including about their composition. However, the Trade Descriptions Act is difficult to enforce in the case of made-up goods containing fur until we can ensure a robust testing method for such products.

  We are working with other governments and scientific advisers to develop such an enforcement mechanism as soon as possible. The Laboratory of the Government Chemist (LGC Ltd.) have provided advice detailing why DNA testing of these products is both difficult and, as yet, unreliable (copies of this advice are available in the Libraries of the House). However, we have identified an alternative testing method (based on mass spectrometry) that may be more reliable and are working to determine whether this is the case.

  The cost of mass spectrometry testing is currently €200 per sample. However, the overall cost of any scheme to test labelling of products containing furs cannot easily be estimated. The cost would be dependent on the level of testing of products that the authorities responsible for enforcing the Trade Descriptions Act considered to be necessary.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) of 11 April 2003,Official Report, column 459W, when she will report to Parliament on the issue of the importation of cat and dog fur. [118260]

  Ms Hewitt
  My noble Friend the Minister for Trade and Investment will report to Parliament on how work is progressing on this issue before the summer recess.

  Gas Order
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will publish the letter of 12 March 1999 from Transco to Ofgem. [116993]
  1004W
  Mr. Wilson
  The department is not able to publish material provided to Ofgem on a confidential basis by Transco.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the letter from Ofgem to Transco on 1 April 1999 constitutes a change to the Gas Order. [116995]

  Mr. Wilson
  This issue will shortly be considered as part of a Judicial Review to which Ofgem is a party, and it would be inappropriate to comment whilst legal proceedings are underway.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if there is a requirement for Ofgem to consult stakeholders before making changes to the Gas Order. [116997]

  Mr. Wilson
  It is for Ofgem to decide on the administrative process for such changes.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether there have been amendments to the Gas Order. [117077]

  Mr. Wilson
  This issue will shortly be considered as part of a judicial review to which Ofgem is a party, and it would be inappropriate to comment whilst legal proceedings are underway.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether Transco is required under the Gas Order to compensate companies if it does not provide gas connection quotations within a specific timescale. [117078]

  Mr. Wilson
  I am advised that the payment of money to certain categories of customer in respect of delayed quotations for connections is a primary feature of Ofgem's Enforcement Order against Transco.

  Horizontal Amending Directive
  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when her Department will publish the draft regulations and guidance on the implementation of the Horizontal Amending Directive, with particular reference to the offshore industry. [118814]

  Alan Johnson
  I hope to make and lay the regulations covering all sectors affected by the Horizontal Amending Directive in early July 2003, and plan to make draft guidance on them available at about the same time.

  Leisure Industry
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to improve productivity in the leisure sector. [117069]

  Alan Johnson
  I recognise the immense contribution that the leisure sector makes to the UK economy. This is reflected in the recent creation a new team within Trade Partners UK devoted to providing support to the leisure industry—especially in the field of exporting, where we believe there is substantial potential.

  Post Offices
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) rural and (b) urban (i) post offices and (ii) sub-post offices have closed in each of the last 10 years, broken down by region. [119148]

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Region

  Urban

  Rural

  Urban

  Rural

  Urban

  Rural

  North East

  1

  4

  0

  10

  8

  1

  North West

  11

  28

  9

  4

  25

  12

  Yorkshire and Humber

  10

  40

  4

  17

  14

  12

  West Midlands

  5

  31

  8

  16

  22

  13

  South West

  11

  48

  7

  26

  31

  8

  South East

  26

  52

  7

  29

  18

  23

  London

  9

  1

  17

  1

  43

  1

  East of England

  10

  60

  1

  22

  17

  16

  East Midlands

  3

  42

  5

  33

  24

  7

  Northern Ireland

  4

  17

  4

  2

  4

  8

  Scotland

  7

  57

  5

  21

  13

  7

  Wales

  9

  61

  3

  23

  11

  7

  Total

  106

  441

  68

  194

  2301

  115

  1 Includes 102 closures under Post Office Ltd's urban reinvention programme

  Primary Energy
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of total primary energy is generated by(a) renewables including heat and (b) electricity generation not including heat. [118570]

  Mr. Wilson
  In 2002, 1.4 per cent. of the UK's total primary energy consumption was provided by renewables. This includes both renewables used to provide heat and renewables used for electricity generation. Primary electricity, namely nuclear, hydro and non-thermal renewables such as wind, accounted for 9.0 per cent. of total primary energy consumption.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of total primary energy is generated by(a) renewables including heat and (b) electricity generation not including heat in Wales. [118571]

  Mr. Wilson
  Primary energy consumption is calculated only on a UK basis because sub-national data are not available for all components of primary energy consumption. Thus, the information requested is not available for Wales.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of total electricity generation, not including heat, is generated by renewables. [118569]

  Mr. Wilson
  In 2002, 3.0 per cent. of electricity generated in the UK was from renewable sources.

  Wood Panel Industry
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will apply the renewables obligation to the wood panel industry. [116267]

  Ms Hewitt
  The renewables obligation requires electricity suppliers in Great Britain to supply a specified and growing proportion of their electricity from renewable sources.
  1006W
  Mr. Timms
  I understand from Post Office Ltd. that details of the total number of post office closures in the United Kingdom, recorded both by region/country and urban/rural classification are only available from March 2000 and are as follows:

  Suppliers are expected to produce 10.4 per cent. of their electricity from renewable sources by 2010–11 and have three ways in which to comply with the obligation:
  through supplying eligible renewables electricity to customers in Great Britain;
  buying renewable obligation certificates independently of the power that gave rise to their issue; and/or
  paying a buy-out price to Ofgem rather than supplying renewables electricity.

  The obligation is not therefore applicable to specific industries, such as the wood panel industry.

TRANSPORT

  Driving Tests
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many examiners are employed by the Driving Standards Agency, broken down by Government office region; and what plans he has to increase the number of examiners. [118805]

  Mr. Spellar
  The 11 Government office regions are covered by five Driving Standards Agency area offices. The number of examiners employed in each area is as follows.
  1007W

  DSA area

  Government office regions

  Number of examiners

  London and South East

  London, South East

  324

  Midlands and Eastern

  Eastern, East Midlands, West Midlands

  417

  Wales and Western

  South West, Wales

  271

  Northern

  North West, North East, Yorkshire and the Humber

  371

  Scotland

  Scotland

  130

  Total

  1,513

  The agency has recently recruited over 130 driving examiners and plans to recruit a further 330 over the coming year.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent assessment he has made of the average time taken for a follow-up driving test following an initial failure to pass a test; and if he will make a statement. [118804]

  Mr. Spellar
  Demand for driving tests has increased from some 1,637,000 in 2002–03 to an estimated 1,746,000 in 2003–04. As a result, the national average waiting time for a practical car driving test has risen to nine weeks, compared with the published target of six weeks. The waiting time applies to all applications for test appointments, irrespective of whether for a first or a subsequent test.

  To meet the rising demand for driving tests and to reduce waiting times the Driving Standards Agency has recently recruited over 130 driving examiners and plans to recruit 330 more in the coming year.

  Parking Penalties
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when changes were last made to the penalties for parking on a single yellow line; and if he will make a statement. [118908]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Responsibility for enforcement of illegal parking on yellow lines rests with the police or, where enforcement has been decriminalised, the relevant local authority.

  Fixed penalties issued by the police for illegal parking were last changed in November 2000 when the penalty was increased from £30 to £40 in London and £20 to £30 outside London.

  Penalty charge levels for decriminalised parking enforcement (DPE) in England outside London are prescribed by the Secretary of Stale for Transport and were last changed in May 2001 when he prescribed that authorities may select either £40. £50 or £60 as the penalty charge. The penalty is discounted by 50 per cent. if paid within 14 days of issue of the penalty charge notice.

  Penalty charges for DPE in London are set by the Association of London Government Transport and Environment Committee and subject to approval by the Mayor. The London penalty charge bands were increased on 1 April this year to £60, £80 and £100. Again the penalty is discounted by 50 per cent. if paid within 14 days of issue of the penalty charge notice.

  Rail Safety (Potters Bar)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how he plans to respond to the conclusions and recommendations of the May Progress Report by the Health and Safety Executive Board concerning the Potters Bar derailment; what plans he has for a public inquiry into the derailment; and if he will make a statement. [118064]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Health and Safety Commission (H SC) and the Secretary of State for Transport will need to consider the implications of the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) Investigation Board report of 29 May, the response of the rail industry to the recommendations and the continuing British Transport Police investigation before deciding whether the issues raised by the Potters Bar derailment would benefit from investigation by a public inquiry.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Coffee
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures her Department has established to manage better the international supply of coffee. [117076]

  Mr. Morley
  Coffee is traded on a free market. Any attempt to intervene in the international coffee market to manage supply is unlikely to work. However, the Government share the concern for the way that coffee growers have been hit by low prices and deteriorating quality, largely as a result of global over supply and structural imbalances in the industry.

  We support action to improve the sustainability of the coffee supply chain and to improve co-operation between all market participants. The UK is a member, through the EU, of the International Coffee Organisation (ICO), a United Nations body established to, amongst other things,
  "achieve a reasonable balance between world supply and demand on a basis which will assure adequate supplies of coffee at fair prices to consumers and markets for coffee at remunerative prices to producers…to facilitate the expansion and transparency of international trade in coffee".

  Officials from the Department regularly attend meetings of the ICO. They also meet with representatives of the coffee trade, other interested organisations and other Government Departments with an interest in coffee matters. They also consider representations and reports provided by these organisations.

  Rural Transport Partnership
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the transport schemes funded since the initiation of the Rural Transport Partnership scheme: and how much funding each scheme received. [117527]

  Alun Michael
  A total of 85 Rural Transport Partnerships have been funded since the launch of the scheme in 2001. Defra has provided nearly £5 million of funding for these schemes through the Countryside
  1009W
  Agency. A complete list of the Rural Transport Partnerships and the level of funding for each scheme has been placed in the Library of the House. Further details of these schemes can be found at www.countryside.gov.uk/vitalvillages.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many working abattoirs there were in(a) 1980, (b) 1985, (c) 1990, (d) 1995 and (e) 2000; how many there are now; and if she will make a statement. [117743]

  Mr. Morley
  The numbers of red meat abattoirs in Great Britain for the five-year intervals from 1980 until 2000 were as follows:

  Red meat abbatoirs

  1980–81

  1,135

  1985–86

  1,000

  1990–91

  779

  1995–96

  488

  2000–01

  359

  Source:

  The Meat and Livestock Commission.

  In 2002–03 there were 320 red meat abattoirs in Great Britain.

  Animal Sanctuaries
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what financial support her Department has given to animal sanctuaries in the United Kingdom since 1997. [117865]

  Mr. Morley
  The department does not provide financial support to animal sanctuaries. However, a considerable number of animal sanctuaries are registered charities. The Government have policies in place to increase the value of these charitable gifts by generous tax concessions, thereby supporting the work of all charities without compromising their independence.

  As part of the Government's policy to encourage more people to give to charity, the tax incentives for charitable giving were improved in Budget 2000, and further built upon in Budget 2002. There are now no limits on the amounts that individuals can give through the Gift Aid and Payroll Giving Schemes. In addition, tax relief is available on gifts to charity of listed shares and securities, land and buildings. Businesses can also get tax relief when they donate money, stock or equipment to charities in general.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has for promoting alternative methods of testing other than using animals. [115584]

  Mr. Morley
  Responsibility for policy on the use of animals in scientific procedures rests with the Home Office.
  1010W
  Defra is playing a full part in collective efforts led by the Home Office to promote the fullest application of the 3Rs—the replacement of procedures with others which do not use animals, the reduction of the number of animals used and the refinement of procedures to minimise pain and suffering—including the inter-Departmental Concordat on Data Sharing and other measures. Among other things, signatories to the concordat aim to minimise data requirements for animal tests as far as possible; encourage data sharing between clients, wherever appropriate, and to identify and overcome any procedural and legal barriers to data sharing.

  Departmental Report
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost was of publishing her Department's annual report for each of the past five years; and if she will provide a breakdown of the costs incurred. [118722]

  Alun Michael
  The Defra annual report for 2002 was produced with the assistance of the Central Office of Information at a cost of £17,887, exclusive of VAT. These costs were in relation to proof-reading, design, layout and artwork and production of the web version of the report.

  The printing of the document was handled by The Stationary Office Ltd. They bore the full cost of printing and publishing.

  The costs for the 2003 Departmental Report have not yet been finalised. The production costs and any print costs for the previous three Annual Departmental Reports for MAFF could be supplied only at a disproportionate cost.

  Beef Exports
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 4 June 2003,Official Report, column 409W, ref. 116584, how much beef was exported over the last three years; and what plans she has to increase this. [118581]

  Mr. Morley
  The following table shows UK exports of beef of both UK and non-UK origin for the last three years. It is not possible to distinguish between exports of beef of UK origin and beef of non-UK origin which has been imported into the UK and subsequently exported.

  Exports of beef and veal from United Kingdom 2000–02

  Unit: Thousand tonnes, carcase weight equivalent

  2000

  8.9

  2001

  8.3

  20021

  10.4

  1Provisional data

  Note:

  Figures include an estimate for unrecorded trade.

  Sources:

  HM Custom and Excise OTS

  DARD, Northern Ireland

  One of the commercial difficulties for beef exporters has been the constrictive nature of the conditions of the Date Based Export Scheme (DBES) which still prohibits

  1011W
  the export of bone-in beef more than nine months old and has very stringent cattle eligibility criteria. Another problem has been the strength of sterling against the euro. However the possibility that the DBES can be modified or dismantled altogether is becoming a very real prospect as the number of BSE cases continues to decline and this, combined with a strengthening of the euro is likely to improve prospects for exports of British origin beef towards the end of next year.

  Business Allowances
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what value of allowances has been made available to businesses since the introduction of the Enhanced Capital Allowance Scheme; and what the take up has been. [113454]

  Mr. Morley
  At the time of its introduction, it was estimated that the scheme would be worth £200 million in its first two years (2001–02 and 2002–03), depending on take-up. I regret that information on actual take-up is not yet available.

  Avian Influenza
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations her Department has received about chicken influenza in Germany and Holland and importing poultry from these countries; and if she will make a statement. [117139]

  Mr. Morley
  Aside from three written Parliamentary Questions and three letters from MPs, Defra has received letters from the National Farmers Union and the British Egg Industry Council concerning the outbreak of Avian Influenza (AI) in the Netherlands and the affected part of Germany.

  European Community law (Council Directive 92/40/ EEC) lays down procedures for controlling AI outbreaks in EU member states. The measures taken by the Dutch and German authorities and endorsed by the European Commission follow the rules laid down in this Directive.

  In line with Community Law, in March 2003 Defra issued a Declaration under Regulation 27 of the Animals and Animal (Import and Export) (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 introducing a ban on the import of live poultry, hatching eggs and racing/show pigeons from the Netherlands. Further Declarations have been issued prohibiting the import of poultry and hatching eggs from the affected part of Germany. Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland introduced similar measures.

  The European Commission is keeping all member states informed of the AI situation in the Netherlands and in the affected part of Germany. The Government are satisfied that the German and Dutch Authorities are doing all that is needed to control the disease.

  Defra will continue to monitor the situation in both Germany and the Netherlands. Officials have reviewed and updated the AI contingency arrangements and the Department is in close touch with the UK poultry industry about measures we would take should AI appear here.
  1012W
  Defra has kept the industry informed and up to date information on the AI situation may be obtained from the Defra website.

  Countryside and Rights of Way Act
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effect of an overspend in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 mapping exercise on other Countryside Agency programmes. [118197]

  Alun Michael
  The Countryside Agency has reviewed its budget for 2003–04 across all its programmes in the light of current commitments and priorities, including mapping open country under the CRoW Act 2000, high demand for some of its programmes, and to make some efficiency savings shared across its programmes. The Agency is working with the Department and partners to ensure that planned outcomes for its key programmes are delivered and that best use is made of its budget of £98 million in 2003–04 compared with £92 million in 2002–03.

  Egg Printing
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether her proposals for egg printing will allow printing to take place(a) on farm and (b) at processing factories; and if she will make a statement. [117140]

  Mr. Morley
  From 1 January 2004, EU rules will require all grade A hen eggs sold at retail level to be marked with an identifying code. This can be carried out either on the farm or at any approved packing centre. Eggs sold directly to the final consumer, to approved food manufacturers or to non-food establishments for processing will not have to be marked.

  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received about the 1 January 2004 deadline for the introduction of egg printing; and if she will make a statement. [117141]

  Mr. Morley
  I have received a number of representations from hon. Members and individuals about the new rules which will require all grade A hen eggs to be marked with an identifying code from 1 January 2004 but none specifically about the implementation date. Departmental officials have been working closely with industry representatives and individual egg packers to advise on the new requirements and how best to meet them.

  English Wine
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she has taken to promote English wine. [116466]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government fosters an environment which encourages English wine producers to innovate and exploit an expanding but highly competitive market. Close liaison between industry representatives and Defra is the cornerstone of this relationship. Officials meet regularly with the industry to discuss producer concerns, and to monitor the UK Quality and Regional Wine Schemes which were introduced by the
  1013W
  Government to promote the quality and reputation of English wine. Defra also offers English wine at large functions that it hosts from time to time, and regularly attends industry organised events.

  Fallen Stock
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received about the use of on-farm incinerators to dispose of fallen stock; and if she will make a statement. [117144]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has had a number of discussions with interested parties regarding the impact of the new EU Animal By-Products Regulation and a proposal for a National Fallen Stock Collection and Disposal Scheme.

  We are currently working with interested organisations, including incinerator manufacturers and end-users (such as farmers) on detailed guidance on implementation of the Regulation's controls on incinerators.

  In the light of proposals for a national collection/ disposal scheme, representations were made to confirm that on-farm incineration continues to be a permitted disposal route for fallen stock and that incinerator manufacturers were not placed at a commercial disadvantage.

  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has for maintaining prices to be charged for removing fallen stock in the next five years; and if she will make a statement. [117145]

  Mr. Morley
  Charges for removal of fallen stock are a commercial matter between providers of fallen stock collection services and owners of the fallen stock.

  The Government have proposed a national fallen stock subscription scheme which would include an element of Government subsidy on a degressive basis over 3 years. However, support for the proposed scheme has been disappointing and discussions continue about options in the light of this response.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what appeal process is available to communities affected by European Commission plans to remove their right to administer fish quota leasing schemes; [118307]

  (2) what representations her Department will make to the European Commission regarding plans to remove the right of communities to administer fish quota leasing schemes; [118308]

  (3) when her Department received notification that the European Commission planned to remove the right of communities to administer fish quota leasing schemes. [118309]

  Mr. Morley
  The European Commission has been investigating the schemes in the Orkney and Shetland islands since 1999. The Commission's doubts about the compatibility of the schemes with the Treaty were made 1014W
  clear when it opened a formal investigation into the schemes in November 2001. In its two letters of 28 November 2001, one on each of the schemes, the Commission observed that there existed:
  "serious doubts on the compatibility of this aid scheme with the Guidelines for the examination of State aid to fisheries and aquaculture and, therefore, with the EC Treaty." (Official Journal C 38 of 12.02.2002 p.6 and p.11)

  These letters were passed to the relevant local authority in each case soon after receipt and published in the Official Journal on 12 February 2002.

  The Commission Decisions of 3 June 2003 constitute the formal view of the Commission on the non-compatibility of these schemes with the Treaty. They were received at the United Kingdom Permanent Representation to the EU on 4 June and sent that day to my Department and to the Scottish Executive who sent them the next day to the local authorities concerned.

  The Decisions require the schemes to be either ended or brought into compliance with the Treaty within two months. If this corrective action is not taken, the provisions of Article 88(2) of the Treaty and Council Regulation (EC) No. 659/1999 allow the Commission to refer the United Kingdom's non-compliance to the European Court of Justice direct. In this case it would fall to the Government, not the administrators of the scheme, to defend or bring the case.

  There is no specific appeal mechanism against Commission State aid Decisions. However, a member state or any natural or legal person may apply to bring an action before the European Court of Justice for annulment of a Decision on certain grounds listed in Article 230 of the Treaty.

  In addition, the provisions of Article 88(2) of the Treaty permit a member state to apply in exceptional circumstances for approval of a State aid by the Council acting unanimously.

  The Commission Decisions are still being considered. We will continue to work closely with the Scottish Executive and the local authorities involved.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the basis was for her policy on invoking the Hague Preference, in the current year, to the UK's benefit in fish stocks; what stocks qualified for the Hague Preference but were not invoked; and who the beneficiaries and losers were in each case as a result of her policy. [116966]

  Mr. Morley
  The policy was, as usual, to invoke Hague Preference on stocks where the UK's quota allocation would otherwise fall below the trigger level. This involves, in particular, invoking to counteract the effect of Irish invocations of Hague Preference on the UK's allocation. However, we do refrain from invoking in some cases where stocks are seriously depleted, as in these cases the operation of Hague Preference would transfer a very high proportion of other member states' allocations to the UK. This is the approach that we judge to be, overall, to the benefit of UK fishermen. For 2003 we did not invoke Hague Preference for any of the depleted North Sea stocks or for saithe in Area VI (where there was no Irish invocation).
  1015W
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what EU competence exists over(a) fish, (b) shellfish, (c) other products of the sea, (d) related quotas and (e) regulation in the (i) six and (ii) 12 mile limits. [117999]

  Mr. Morley
  The European Union has exclusive competence over marine biological resources under the Common Fisheries Policy. Within this framework, the CFP Regulation EC 2371/2002 allows member states to take non-discriminatory conservation measures, conforming with the CFP, up to 12 miles from the shore line.

  Invasive Weeds
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to assist those responsible for habitats where invasive non-native weeds are growing(a) to offset financial implications, (b) to install long-term plans to ensure these weeds are not just temporarily cleared but that all rhizomes are killed off and (c) to assist with safe disposal of cleared weeds to ensure that spread is not encouraged; and if she will make a statement. [117798]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has no plans to provide specific funding to meet the costs for landowners of dealing with invasive non-native plants, although statutory bodies such as the Environment Agency, English Nature and local authorities may on occasion be involved with control projects.

  Guidance on control and disposal of non-native plants is made available by the Environment Agency and English Nature. Fuller details are given in the response to my hon. Friend's separate question 117799. Waste containing Japanese knot weed is controlled under the Environment Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to assist those responsible for habitats where invasive non-native weeds are growing; and if she will make a statement. [117799]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency and English Nature produce a range of guidance on controlling invasive non-native plants. The Environment Agency produces detailed guidance for landowners and managers on how to control a number of invasive species. In addition, English Nature has provided funding for 'The Invasive Alien Species' website (http:// www.appliedvegetationdynamics.co.uk/IAAPwebsite/ index.asp), which provides guidance for controlling problem species. Leaflets on invasive non-native pond plants produced jointly by English Nature, the Environment Agency and others also give guidance on control and on safe disposal to avoid further spread of the plants.

  In addition, the Department has set up a working group to undertake a fundamental Review of Non-Native Species Policy. Its report, published on 28 March 2003, is available in the House library. It includes a range of measures for dealing with invasive non-native species. We are developing, in liaison with the Devolved Administrations, the Government response to the report, and there will be public consultation later this year.
  1016W
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had regarding the control of invasive non-native weeds; and if she will make a statement. [117801]

  Mr. Morley
  In March this year, the Department completed a Review of Non-native Species Policy. The Review involved discussions with other Government Departments, the Devolved Administrations, the statutory conservation agencies and representatives from the trade sector, animal welfare and conservation organisations. This included discussion of control of invasive non-native plants.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received regarding the role of educating gardeners and others in controlling invasive non-native weeds; and if she will make a statement. [117802]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department receives numerous representations on invasive non-native species. The Review of Non-native Species Policy reported that stakeholders, including gardeners, have a key role to play, for example, in avoiding further introductions of invasive non-native plants, and recommended a public education and awareness campaign. The Government are considering their response to the Review's report.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimates she has made of the costs of tackling invasive non-native weeds; and if she will make a statement. [117803]

  Mr. Morley
  The report of the Review of Non-native Species Policy provided rough cost estimates for national control programmes for various invasive species, including invasive non-native plants, by way of illustration of the issue. For example, the report included estimates that a national Japanese knotweed eradication programme using current techniques would cost approximately £1.56 billion. At this level of cost, national control programmes are unlikely to be feasible. This shows the importance of effective measures to prevent introductions. However, the Department is also contributing research into novel methods of control of Japanese knotweed, which may help reduce costs.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research has been done into effective methods of killing invasive non-native weeds with(a) chemicals available in garden centres to tackle weeds, (b) weedkillers which have now been withdrawn from general circulation and (c) chemical preparations available only to professionals; and what plans she has to reassess the status of the withdrawn chemical preparations if they are proved to be better at tackling the problem. [117804]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has undertaken a number of research projects looking into the impact of the use of pesticides on weeds in, or around, agricultural and horticultural crops. The Environment Agency's leaflet on control of invasive non-native plants gives guidance on use of chemical control. Only one research project has specifically focussed on invasive non-native plants and this is investigating alternatives to chemicals. The Department is contributing with Cornwall county council, the Environment Agency and others, to
  1017W
  research into biological control of one of the problem species—Japanese knotweed. The study will undertake the necessary research to establish whether biological control is a feasible method for the long-term, sustainable management of Japanese knotweed in the UK.

  The Department is not undertaking any research into the effectiveness of withdrawn weedkillers to control invasive non-native plants. The UK's pesticide regulatory system allows for the granting of 'emergency' approvals whereby the marketing and use of plant protection products may be permitted, subject to an environmental risk assessment, for a limited period to control invasive non-native weeds if the threat they pose cannot be controlled by other means.

  Meat Imports
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the estimated tonnage of illegal meat imported into the UK was in each of the last three years. [118023]

  Mr. Morley
  The Veterinary Laboratories Agency published a risk assessment report on 25 March 2003. This estimated the amount of illegal meat imported annually, on average, to be 7,500 tonnes, with 90 per cent. certainty that the amount of illegal meat imported will range from 2,800 tonnes to 17,500 tonnes per year.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the House Libraries.

  Local Food Chains
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what help is available to those organisations which wish to develop local food chains. [116439]

  Mr. Morley
  We recognise the benefits that local food can bring and are keen to encourage the development of sustainable local food chains. Funding under the England Rural Development Programme has been used to support a range of local food chain related initiatives, including the establishment of farmers' markets and other direct sales outlets, the development of local branding initiatives and the formation of collaborative groups to market produce. We will continue to deploy our various funding schemes to encourage a flourishing local food sector. This activity will complement the measures at a regional level which the Regional Development Agencies will be implementing as part of their wider food and drink strategies.

  Local Produce
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will introduce(a) rate relief and (b) other incentives to stores supplying local produce. [116349]

  Mr. Morley
  The information is as follows:
  (a) There are reasons of both principle and of practical effect which argue against this recommendation. Non-domestic rates are designed to raise revenue for the Exchequer. Ratepayers pay rates that reflect the rental value of the property regardless of
  1018W
  the activity that takes place within that property. Rates are not there to encourage or discourage particular types of behaviour or investment. There are innumerable worthy causes that the rates system could support by granting relief and this would introduce complexity to a system that aims to be fair and equitable. There are, however, other options, which may be more effective. The Local Government Bill will introduce a new scheme of rate relief for small businesses. Many small retailers supplying local produce could benefit under this scheme.

  (b) There is growing consumer interest in local food. Many retailers have responded to this and have adopted local sourcing policies. We welcome this and want to encourage more local sourcing. We have recently financed a series of workshops organised by the Institute of Grocery Distribution, designed to bring together supermarkets and small local producers to explore how barriers to local sourcing may be overcome. In addition to this, we have just announced an extra £3 million over the next three years for Food from Britain to undertake a series of measures encouraging retailers to source more quality regional food and consumers to buy it.

  Marine Resources
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she was consulted by(a) the EU constitutional convention and (b) the UK representative on the convention about the provision in the draft constitution giving EU exclusive competence over the marine resources of the sea; and what representations she (i) has made and (ii) will be making on this issue. [117723]

  Mr. Morley
  The line taken on this matter by the United Kingdom reflects this Department's views.

  Milk Quotas
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans have been put in place to ensure that unused UK milk quota is redistributed to UK farmers after 31 March 2004; and if she will make a statement. [117147]

  Mr. Morley:
  As a result of the Thomsen European Court of Justice (ECJ) judgment, quota holders who are no longer in active milk production will, by 31 March 2004, have to sell their milk quota, resume production, or otherwise have their quota confiscated. We anticipate that the vast majority will either sell their quota or resume production. Where quota is confiscated, under the current UK legislation the quota holder has six years in which to resume production (and thus have the quota restored to him or her) before the quota is definitively taken into the national reserve of quota, and therefore potentially available for redistribution. Under the current CAP reform proposals, this period would be reduced to two years. We would propose to consult relevant trade organisations on the basis for redistributing quota confiscated as a result of the Thomsen ECJ case, if significant amounts of quota were confiscated, and thus potentially available for redistribution.

  Shellhaven Scheme
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of the Shellhaven Pact proposals in the Thames Estuary on(a) ground water levels in the Castle Point constituency and (b) the fishing industry in that area. [117994]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency has a duty to secure the proper use of water resources in England and Wales. The Agency advises me that the main water bearing aquifer in the area is chalk which, because it is hydraulically isolated from the surface by being deeply buried beneath London clay, will not be affected by the Shellhaven proposal.

  The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), an Executive Agency of Defra, provides expert scientific advice on marine and freshwater issues. It has contributed to the current public inquiry into the Shellhaven scheme given the international importance of the Thames Estuary as an area for sole spawning and juvenile sole. CEFAS has recommended that further survey work be carried out and assessment made of whether seasonal restrictions on dredging may be necessary to mitigate any adverse impact.

  OSPAR Commission
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action will be taken to ensure that the Government meet the commitments of the OSPAR Commission proposals of July 1998 in advance of the meeting in Bremen in June 2003. [116119]

  Mr. Meacher
  In 1998, OSPAR agreed strategies on hazardous substances, eutrophication, radioactive substances, biodiversity, and assessment and monitoring. A strategy for offshore oil and gas was agreed the following year. These strategies set long term goals—in some cases, looking a generation ahead (i.e. 2020).

  The strategy with regard to hazardous substances sets the objective of preventing pollution of the maritime area by continuously reducing discharges, emissions and losses of hazardous substances, with the ultimate aim of achieving concentrations in the marine environment near background values for naturally occurring substances and close to zero for man-made synthetic substances. The UK has worked with other OSPAR contracting parties, including the European Commission, to update and prioritise a list of substances that cause concern for the marine environment and to identify the most appropriate additional action to achieve the objective.

  The objective of the strategy to combat eutrophication is to seek to achieve and maintain a healthy marine environment where eutrophication does not occur by the year 2010. A key milestone to this is the assessment of the current eutrophication status of the various parts of the OSPAR maritime area. In this assessment the UK identified 16 marine areas of concern. These are being addressed by action under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive and the Nitrates Directive.
  1020W
  The strategy with regard to radioactive substances requires the OSPAR Commission, by the year 2020, to ensure that discharges of radioactive substances are reduced to levels where the additional concentrations in the marine environment above historic levels, resulting from such discharges, are close to zero. In July 2002, the Government published a strategy showing how the United Kingdom will contribute to the achievement of the 2020 target.

  OSPAR's biodiversity strategy aims to protect and conserve ecosystems and marine biological diversity. Annex V was brought into force on 30 August 2000. Since then, the UK has prepared for the forthcoming meeting in Bremen by helping to develop a criteria for identifying threatened and declining species, developing guidelines on the identification and management of marine protected areas, developing guidance on the construction and operation of offshore wind farms, developing an agreement on sand and gravel extraction, arid the development of proposed ecological quality objectives which will be piloted in the North sea.

  The strategy for oil and gas addresses the effects of offshore activity through the setting of environmental goals and the establishment of management mechanisms to achieve them. Good progress has been made, in particular with controls on chemicals being agreed and an ambitious goal being set to reduce discharges of produced water. A goal of all operators having internationally recognised environmental management systems in place by the end of 2005 has also been developed and is expected to be adopted at the meeting later this month.

  In respect of assessment and monitoring, the forthcoming meeting will invite Ministers to endorse a new OSPAR strategy known as the Joint Assessment and Monitoring Programme (JAMP). This provides the framework for OSPAR's work in this area, both in support of other OSPAR strategies and to facilitate the production in 2010 of a Quality Status Report for the OSPAR maritime area.

  Overall the UK has been implementing the plans and. measures set out above in accordance with these strategies, and the milestones contained within them, and has met its commitments to date.

  Partnership Agreements
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she plans to conclude a partnership agreement with the trade unions representing the staff in her Department. [117458]

  Alun Michael
  Work on a partnership agreement is well in hand. Senior managers and the Department's Trade Union Side have met on several occasions to discuss partnership working in the Department and the Agencies. A further meeting is scheduled to discuss a draft policy document and subject to it being mutually acceptable we anticipate a partnership agreement will be concluded.

  Rural Affairs
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will
  1021W
  make a statement on funding arrangements for the implementing of (a) the rights of way legislation and (b) the vital villages policy. [116442]

  Alun Michael
  The information is as follows:
  (a) Under the new burdens procedure, local authorities are being fully funded for their new duties in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. In the explanatory notes presented to Parliament with the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill in March 2000, we estimated those costs to be between £12 million and £19 million. The total funding is within this band and is paid through the unhypothecated Environment and Cultural Services Block. We are also funding various activities relating to the Act via the Countryside Agency.

  (b) The Vital Villages Initiative was launched in 2001 as a three year demand led programme. It is administered by the Countryside Agency on behalf of Defra. The scheme delivered nearly £24.5 million to rural communities in its first two years of operation. A further £17 million has been budgeted for 2003–04, of which some £12 million has already been allocated. Due to the overwhelming success of the scheme there are currently more applications than available funding. Applications are being prioritised to ensure projects that benefit those communities in greatest need receive funding.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she last met the Chairman of the Countryside Agency to discuss rural proofing. [115578]

  Alun Michael
  I meet Sir Ewen Cameron frequently and regularly to discuss a wide range of issues in connection with his role as Rural Advocate and his role as Chairman of the Countryside Agency. Rural proofing is a regular topic of conversation. The Secretary of State and Ministers from Defra and other Departments also meet Sir Ewen from time to time.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much funding she expects the Countryside Agency to give the Rural Transport Partnership in Gloucestershire in(a) 2003–04 and (b) 2004–05; and if she will make a statement. [118603]

  Alun Michael
  On behalf of Defra, the Countryside Agency plans to give Gloucestershire Rural Transport Partnership a £90,000 grant over the period 2003–04 to 2004–05. The 2004–05 funds will be subject to approval after 2003–04. For each of the years 2003–04 and 2004–05 Gloucestershire RTP will receive the core costs for running the partnership (including a rural transport officer post) of £35,000, plus £10,000 delegated fund for small scale transport projects in their area.

  State Veterinary Service
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many veterinary surgeons have been employed by the State Veterinary Service in each year since 1997. [118070]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 12 June 2003]: The number of permanent veterinary surgeons (full time equivalent) employed by the State Veterinary Service at 1 January each year since 1997, is given in the table. The
  1022W
  figures for 2002 and 2003 do not include Headquarters veterinary surgeons responsible for policy development in the Animal Health and Welfare Directorate General. In addition as at 1 January 2003 there were 58 casual and fixed term appointee veterinary staff.

  Year

  Number of vets

  1997

  289.5

  1998

  302.0

  1999

  283.0

  2000

  284.0

  2001

  286.0

  2002

  252.3

  2003

  257.4

DEFENCE

  Animal Welfare
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the Government's policy is on the use of animal fur in the manufacture of army uniforms. [117834]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence is not aware of any Government policy on the use of animal fur in the manufacture of Army (or other military) uniforms. The Department does, however, purchase various clothing items which incorporate animal fur as part of their specification to an agreed quality standard. However, MOD is open to change and we are actively seeking suitable synthetic alternatives where feasible.

  Warships
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 13 May 2003 to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis),Official Report, column 159W, on warships, which frigates will be disposed of earlier than previously planned. [117657]

  Mr. Ingram
  As I stated in my answer of 13 May 2003,Official Report, column 159W to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), there are currently no plans to dispose of any Royal Navy Type 23 Frigates earlier than scheduled. I also refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 12 May 2003, Official Report, column 47W to the hon. Member for New Forest, East and to the answer I gave him on 3 June 2003, Official Report, column 44W.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps the Government plan to take as a contribution to the elimination of the UK nuclear arsenal, as reaffirmed at the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. [118412]

  Mr. Hoon
  The United Kingdom has an excellent record in fulfilling its Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations on nuclear disarmament. Consistent with the policy set out in the Strategic Defence Review in 1998, the UK has already gone further than other nuclear weapon states in implementing the measures agreed in the Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference.
  1023W
  More specifically, the UK has:
  withdrawn and dismantled the RAF's freefall nuclear bomb so that Trident is now our only nuclear weapons system;
  reduced our operationally available stockpile to fewer than 200 warheads, which is a reduction of more than 70 per cent. in the potential explosive power of our nuclear forces since the end of the Cold War;
  dismantled the UK's last Chevaline warhead, in April 2002;
  reduced the readiness of our nuclear forces. Only a single Trident submarine is now on deterrent patrol, carrying 48 warheads. The submarine on patrol is normally on several days 'notice to fire' and its missiles are de-targeted;
  placed fissile material no longer required for defence purposes under international safeguards. All enrichment and reprocessing facilities in the UK are now liable to international inspection; and
  been more transparent about our nuclear and fissile material stockpiles and begun a national historical accounting study for fissile material produced.

  The UK continues to play a full part in the NPT Review Process, including most recently in the Second Session of the Preparatory Committee (PrepCom), which was held in Geneva in April/May this year, where we gave a full account of our progress to date.

  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions the Government have had on the possibility of a follow-on to the Trident nuclear weapon(a) delivery system and (b) warhead. [118402]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government keep under appropriate review all options, including those relating to nuclear deterrence, consistent with their international legal obligations, for maintaining and enhancing national and international security. There are no current plans for any replacement of Trident and no decisions are yet needed. We stated in the New Chapter to the Strategic Defence Review, published last year (Cm 5566), that the United Kingdom's nuclear weapons have a continuing use as a means of deterring major strategic military threats, and they have a continuing role in guaranteeing the ultimate security of the UK. In line with the 1998 Strategic Defence Review, it is our policy to maintain a minimum capability to design and produce a successor to Trident should this prove necessary.

  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many new scientific posts are being created at AWE; and what their role is in weapons research. [118400]

  Dr. Moonie
  Posts to be created over the next few years will he primarily to enable recruitment of graduates who will, in time, replace existing scientists, a number of whom are due to retire. The actual numbers of graduates to be recruited will depend on the success of AWE's recruitment campaign and the suitability of candidates.

  The role of AWE is to support United Kingdom nuclear weapons policy as set out in the 1998 Strategic Defence Review.

  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether scientific endeavours at AWE include research on new designs for nuclear warheads. [118401]
  1024W
  Dr. Moonie
  There are no current plans for any replacement for Trident and no decisions are yet needed. In line with the 1998 Strategic Defence Review, it is our policy to maintain the capability to design and produce a successor weapon should this prove necessary.

  Paratrooper Andrew Kelly
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what investigation has been conducted into the circumstances of the death of Paratrooper Andrew Kelly in army barracks in Basra on 8 May. [118636]

  Dr. Moonie
  Paratrooper Andrew Kelly died on 6 May 2003 in Iraq. This incident is subject to an ongoing investigation by the Royal Military Police and a Board of Inquiry.

  Prague Capabilities Commitment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what commitments the Government have made regarding improvements in military capabilities in providing deployable forces under the Prague Capabilities Commitment. [117908]

  Mr. Hoon
  The United Kingdom has consistently made a strong contribution towards the improvement of NATO's capabilities. Our commitments to the Prague Capabilities Commitment are aimed at improving the deployability, sustainability and effectiveness of our armed forces. In particular, we have made commitments in NBC protection equipment, deployable Combat Service Support, secure Communication and Information systems and strategic air and sealift.

  In addition to these national commitments, we are participating in multinational efforts to address shortfalls in NATO capability, and in this regard are leading a group looking at chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear defence.

  Royal Anglian Regiment
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by each Government region the regiments historically attached to cities and counties in that region. [118715]

  Dr. Moonie
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the types of weapons of mass destruction in the possession of Her Majesty's Government. [117922]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 22 May 2002,Official Report, column 367W to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith).

SCOTLAND

  "Friends of Scotland"
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the outcomes achieved by her "Friends of Scotland" initiative. [118332]
  1025W
  Mrs. Liddell
  "Friends of Scotland" aims to highlight contemporary Scotland's strengths internationally and to harness the considerable goodwill towards Scotland that exists in many countries. It is now successfully established as an active, worldwide network of influential individuals.

  Many of the signed up Friends are setting up their own local networks of contacts who are working to enhance the perception of Scotland overseas.

  The website has proved highly successful in highlighting Scottish achievements in the fields of culture, education and business.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff have been employed in the Ministerial Correspondence Unit of the Department in each of the last two years. [115880]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In each of the last two years my Department has employed two full-time equivalent staff in the Ministerial Correspondence Unit, although staff also undertake other administrative duties.

  Electoral Boundaries
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she last met representatives of Scottish local authorities to discuss boundaries for the next general election in Scotland. [118333]

  Mrs. Liddell
  It would not be appropriate for me to meet representatives of Scottish local authorities to discuss boundaries for the next general election in Scotland. Such matters fall within the responsibilities of the wholly independent Boundary Commission for Scotland. I have a specific statutory role in relation to the laying of Parliamentary Orders implementing final recommendations from the Commission.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what her assessment is of the latest date on which new boundary proposals for Scotland would have to be laid before the House if electoral arrangements are to be in place for the next general election. [118334]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I am unable to make such an assessment as this would depend on when the next general election is held. The Boundary Commission must report to me by December 2006.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland pursuant to her written answer of 15 May 2003,Official Report, column 367W, what the reason was for the delay in responding substantively to the written question set down for answer on 20 March. [115798]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The timetable for publishing departmental reports is set by the Treasury. Information about the publication date for the Scotland Office report was not available at the time of the original question.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  School Transport
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent assessment has been made of evacuation procedures on buses taking pupils to and from school. [118034]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  None. School transport safety over and above the legal minimum is a matter for individual LEAs, consequently no national assessment has been made. All buses and coaches must have clearly signed Emergency Exits. While children are, occasionally, required to evacuate home to school transport quickly, I am not aware of any problems that have arisen during that process. Nevertheless, schools and local education authorities should consider the benefits of carrying out regular evacuation drills in collaboration with bus operators, so that pupils know what to do in an emergency.

  Numeracy/Literacy
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of British adults had the lowest(a) numeracy and (b) literacy levels as defined by the OECD in each year since 1997. [118634]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The most recent information available on adult numeracy and literacy levels is from the International Adult Literacy Study (IALS), which was carried out in 1996.

  The study indicated that:
  (a) 23 per cent. of adults aged 16–65 in Great Britain had poor numeracy skills
  (b) 22 per cent. of adults aged 16–65 in Great Britain had poor literacy skills

  The IALS data from 1996 is published annually in the OECD publication "Education at a Glance". There are no data available for 1997 or for subsequent years.

  The Department has commissioned a new representative sample survey of working age adults in England to provide an up-to-date assessment of the scale of literacy and numeracy need. These estimates will be mapped to the new national basic skills standards and will be published in autumn 2003.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will place in the Library a copy of the Go-Karts video of the Early Literacy Support programme. [117184]

  Maria Eagle
  Yes. A copy will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Civil Servants
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many civil servants are predicted to be employed in the Department in(a) 2003–04, (b) 2004–05 and (c) 2005–06. [117762]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested (which is contained in Annex F of the Departmental Report 2003) is set out in the following table.
  1027W

  2003–04 plans

  2004–05 plans

  2005–06 plans

  Civil Service full-time equivalents

  4,592

  4,577

  4,527

  Casuals

  113

  113

  113

  Total

  4,705

  4,690

  4,640

  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many civil servants' advisers have been employed by his Department in each of the years from 1997–98 to 2002–03; and what their median and weighted mean salary was. [117763]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My Department has not employed any civil servants' advisers in any of the years from 1997–98 to 2002–03.

  Document Costs
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 22 May 2003,Official Report, column 1002W, on document costs, what estimate he has made of the cost to his Department of publications which were not handled through the Department's publicity division in each of the last five years for which information is available. [118605]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 10 June 2003]: The Department produces a large number of publications each year, ranging from small leaflets to larger booklets. The large majority of these are related to information or guidance on specific areas of policy, targeted at practitioners or stakeholders such as schools, LEAs, school governors, etc.

  The Department's publicity division uses a bespoke financial management system, which records expenditure through their system of framework contracts with a range of suppliers of paid publicity services which is categorised according to media, including design and print.

  Expenditure by individual policy teams which is not processed through the publicity division system is not categorised in the same way, (although the same framework contracts are used), and therefore the information requested on document costs produced through them is not available.

  There has been no change to the way the Department produces or procures its publications in the past five years. We have a duty to consult on and inform our customers, stakeholders and interest groups of policy changes and developments. The volume, and by implication the level of expenditure, is largely dependent on the level of activity on policy initiatives which the Department needs to communicate to these groups.

  The Department operates under strict targets to control and reduce the number of paper-based communication to schools and LEAs to help reduce the bureaucratic burden. In the current academic year (September 2002 to July 2003), the volume of printed material sent directly to schools is on course to be reduced by 50 per cent. against the corresponding figure sent to schools in the last academic year.

  Euro
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he received the Treasury documents relating to the five economic tests and the 18 background studies; what discussions he has held with ministerial colleagues on the tests since receipt of the documents; when he expects to complete his analysis of the documents; and what representations(a) he and (b) departmental officials will make to other Departments before a decision is reached on the economic tests. [115391]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Treasury's 18 supporting studies on EMU were sent to Cabinet Ministers on 16 May. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor held meetings with Cabinet Members. There was an initial discussion at Cabinet on 22 May followed by a special Cabinet meeting on 5 June. The Chancellor made a statement to the House of Commons on 9 June.

  Hotel Accommodation
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the amount spent by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies on hotel accommodation (i) in the UK and (ii) abroad for (A) Ministers, (B) staff and (C) others; and if he will list the average cost per hotel room, in each year since 1997. [117562]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government published an annual report on ministerial travel overseas. The total cost of ministerial travel provided in the annual report includes the cost of accommodation. The information sought in respect of accommodation within the UK is not held centrally. All travel is conducted in line with the requirements of the Ministerial Code.

  The detailed information requested for (B) staff and (C) others, is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. All travel is conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Service Management Code.

  KPMG
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many contracts his Department has awarded to KPMG since 1997. [113682]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My Department does not centrally hold a record of Individual contracts. However, our financial records show the following payments made by the Department to KPMG by fiscal year since April 1997.

  Value (£)

  1997–98

  0.00

  1998–99

  0.00

  1999–2000

  3,127,973.00

  2000–01

  3,025,001.00

  2001–02

  396,353.00

  2002–03

  1,014,559.00

  Learning and Skills Sector
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 3 June 2003, ref. 115082, if he will list the members of the independent gatekeeper group to reduce bureaucracy in the learning and skills sector. [117751]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have appointed Sir Andrew Foster as Chairman of the Bureaucracy Review Group. Sir Andrew's appointment was formally announced by my hon. Friend the Minister (Margaret Hodge) at the Learning and Skills Development Agency Summer Conference on 10 June. The remaining members of the group will be appointed by the end of July and I will ask officials to write to the hon. Gentleman with their names as soon as this is possible.

  Partnership Agreements
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether he plans to conclude a partnership agreement with the trade unions representing the staff in his Department. [117459]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There are plans to conclude a partnership agreement with the trade unions representing staff in my Department. Although a formal agreement has not yet been signed, my officials are in active discussion with the trade unions to finalise a meaningful agreement that supports our business. In practice, my Department and its trade unions already work together to achieve shared aims and objectives in an equal, positive and constructive relationship. The Cabinet Office/Council of Civil Service Unions 'Partnership Working in the Civil Service' agreement is available to all staff and managers through my Department's employee relations website.

  My Department does not have any Executive Agencies.

  PR/Media Consultants
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the cost of(a) public relations and (b) media consultants to his Department in each of the last five years for which information is available. [118606]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 10 June 2003]: The cost of public relations consultants to the Department for the past five years is as follows:

  1998–99—£549,000

  1999–2000—£88,000

  2000–01—£794,000

  2001–02—£1,574,000

  2002–03—£1,944,457.

  The increase over the past two years reflects selective use of PR agencies for a number of campaigns, such as Adult Basic Skills, Aimhigher, Connexions and Millennium Volunteers where key target audiences are difficult to reach through traditional advertising routes. Activity to develop national and local media coverage and targeted communications through external organisations already in contact with these audiences has proved effective.
  1030W
  The Department has not incurred expenditure on media consultants in this period.

  School Federations
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on plans to fund and integrate school federations as single collegiate institutions through a legal change in governance arrangements, as outlined in the recent Excellence and Enjoyment document. [117172]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Collaboration may be more or less formal, ranging from informal information exchange on an ad hoc basis to the legal establishment of formal governance arrangements. There is a wide range of collaborative projects which offer opportunities to primary schools.

  From 2002, all maintained primary schools will be able to federate/collaborate under the terms of the 2002 Education Act. Some limited pump-priming funding will be available as outlined on the federation website (www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/federations).

  School Funding
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what modelling was done by his Department to test the new funding system for local authorities and schools, with particular reference to its impact at individual school level. [117872]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 9 June 2003]: The Government's proposals for a new LEA funding system were first set out in the Local Authority Finance Green Paper of September 2000, and subsequently reconfirmed in last autumn's Schools White Paper and the Local Government White Paper. DfES and ODPM had extensive consultation with external partners throughout all of 2001 and most of 2002, with a three month consultation on a range of options carried out in July 2002. Building on the responses to the consultation, ODPM and DfES explored a large number of options for the distribution of Formula Grant and Education Formula Spending Shares between authorities before determining this year's settlement. In particular, we decided on a minimum like-for-like grant increase of 3.5 per cent. and a minimum like-for-like Education FSS increase of 3.2 per cent. per pupil to ensure that each education authority received a reasonable increase.

  Our analysis of options included a detailed assessment of the implications for each LEA and therefore it's schools necessary passporting requirements. However, decisions on council tax and disbursement of funding between schools is a matter for individual local authorities, subject to the general constraints contained in the Fair Funding regulations.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools there are for which education funding for the current academic year fails to cover standstill budgetary pressures, broken down by county. [117635]

  Mr. Miliband
  Schools will face a range of budgetary pressures depending on a number of factors, namely the specific cost pressures which the school faces and the level of funding which it has received from its local authority.
  1031W
  Cost pressures vary school by school depending in particular on the staffing profile of the school and changing pupil numbers. Funding depends on decisions by central Government by LEAs.

  The increase in funding for each school will depend on a number of factors covering both central and local government responsibility. These are the increase in funding given to the school's authority by central Government; the amount which the local authority decides to increase its Schools Budget by; the increase which the local authority decides to give to the Individual Schools Budget, as opposed to the items within the Schools Budget which are held centrally; and the operation of the local authority's formula which gives different increases to different schools.

  School Meals
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to encourage schools to develop whole school food policies; and if he will make a statement. [117417]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 9 June 2003]: Our Food in Schools programme (run jointly with the Department of Health) supports all aspects of food education within the National Curriculum as well as a range of projects aimed at developing healthy eating habits. We are producing guidance to encourage schools to adopt a consistent approach to teaching about diet, nutrition, cooking, food hygiene and safety, and to reflect this approach in the provision of food that pupils eat at school.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to encourage LEAs to ensure that meals provided on school premises are low in sugar, fat and salt; and if he will make a statement. [118145]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  In April 2001, this Department introduced regulations that set nutritional standards for school lunches together with complementary guidance to assist caterers in preparing school meals. The guidance makes various recommendations for reducing the amount of fat, sugar and salt in school lunches and recommends that foods containing fat and sugar should make up no more than 10 per cent. of the total foods on offer over the course of one week. It is for local education authorities or, where the budget for school meals is delegated to them, a school's governing body, to decide the ingredients and dishes that will be on offer at lunchtime.

  Skills Councils
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much additional private sector employer investment he estimates will be put into sector skills councils in addition to his Department's own resources; and if he will make a statement. [118136]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) will receive a substantial contribution of up to £3 million over three years from Government towards their core costs. The strength and vitality of SSCs will be measured in part by the extent to which they are able to generate financial support from all sector stakeholders, including employers. We expect SSCs to lever in substantial 1032W
  private sector employer investment but have not set a target on how much that investment should be. However, Government would expect private sector employer investment to rise over time, particularly as SSCs demonstrate their benefits to employers.

  Training Costs
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will publish the level of contributions that employers have made towards publicly funded skills and training costs in each region for the last three years. [117972]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The total cost of training to employers in England was estimated at approximately £23 billion for 2000. This breaks down by region as follows:

  Region

  £ billion

  North East

  1.8

  North West

  3.9

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  1.9

  East Midlands

  1.1

  West Midlands

  2.1

  Eastern

  2.0

  London

  5.3

  South East

  3.6

  South West

  1.7

  The estimates are from the Learning and Training at Work 2000 survey of employers and covers all training—both that which is publicly funded and otherwise. The figures include indirect costs—the largest component is the wage costs of the trainees while in training. Comparable figures for 2001 and 2002, and a breakdown into training funded publicly or otherwise are not available.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the total cost to her Department was for accountancy services in 2002. [101862]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 12 March 2003]:

  The total cost to the Crown Prosecution Service for accountancy services provided in 2002–03 by external firms of accountants was £57,000.

  The total cost to the Serious Fraud Office for accountancy services provided in 2002–03 by external firms of accountants was £2,542,511. The Serious Fraud Office has only incurred costs on the use of specific accountancy expertise to support case investigations during the financial year 2002–03. There has been no administrative accountancy service other than external and internal audits by the National Audit Office and the Inland Revenue respectively.

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department, HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate and Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers have not expended any costs on external firms of accountants in the period 2002–03.
  1033W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the total cost to her Department was for accountancy services in 2002–03. [109484]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 28 April 2003]:

  The total cost to the Crown Prosecution Service for accountancy services provided in 2002–03 by external firms of accountants was £57,000.

  The total cost to the Serious Fraud Office for accountancy services provided in 2002–03 by external firms of accountants was £2,542,511. The Serious Fraud Office has only incurred costs on the use of specific accountancy expertise to support case investigations during the financial year 2002–03. There has been no administrative accountancy service other than external and internal audits by the National Audit Office and the Inland Revenue respectively.

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department, HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate and Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers have not expended any costs on external firms of accountants in the period 2002–03

  Agency Workers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many agency workers have been employed by the Department in each of the last two years; and at what cost to public funds. [115211]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 10 April 2003]:

  Crown Prosecution Service

  The Crown Prosecution Service does not keep centralised records of the number of agency workers employed. It would incur disproportionate cost to collect this information. The cost to public funds of agency workers employed by the Crown Prosecution Service was £2.48 million in financial year 2001–02 and £2.42 million in 2002–03.

  Serious Fraud Office

  The Serious Fraud Office employed 116 agency workers in 2001–02, at a cost of £473,421. 120 agency workers were employed in 2002–03 at a cost of £394,754.

  These figures include general administrative staff as well as accountants and lawyers.

  HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate

  HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate expenditure for agency staff in financial year 2001–02 and 2002–03 was £51,125.25 and £17,114.97 respectively. The number of agency staff employed in 2001–02 and 2002–03 was 8 and 12, respectively.

  Neither the Treasury Solicitor's Department or the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers hold this information centrally.

  Departmental Underspend
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what plans she has to reduce the Department's underspend in 2003–04 from that of 2002–03. [112782]
  1034W
  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 14 May 2003]:

  The Crown Prosecution Service

  The Crown Prosecution Service is currently finalising its resource accounts for 2002–03. The final outturn position will be known with certainty when the accounts have been completed and certified by the National Audit Office. Against the main control total, the departmental expenditure limit, the Crown Prosecution Service anticipates an underspend of £2.5 million, which is half of one per cent. of the gross provision of £484 million and provides evidence of the effective financial budgetary, planning and control systems in place in the Department. Spending plans for CPS Areas and CPS HQ are regularly reviewed during the year and remedial action taken where appropriate to ensure spending targets are met. Such reviews will continue in 2003–04. On expenditure that is outside the departmental expenditure limit, there will be an underspend of around £13 million in respect of the costs of depreciation of IT assets, which were transferred to the Department's public finance initiative partner, LogicaCMG plc, on 1 April 2002. Future estimates of depreciation costs reflect the transfer and such an underspend cannot recur in the future.

  Serious Fraud Office

  The Serious Fraud Office plans to fully utilise its resources available in 2003–04. The Serious Fraud Office does not plan to underspend in any financial year but it is subject to short-term volatility in its resource consumption plans. The ability to make use of the End Year Flexibility scheme and carry resources forward to future years ensures that consumption can be managed efficiently and effectively to achieve value for money.

  HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate

  HM Crown Prosecution Service's underspend for 2002–03 is estimated to be £87k, attributable to managed vacancies while revising inspection methodology. Recruitment is currently under way. The underspend will be reduced in the Financial Year 2003–04 by recruiting additional staff, although it is still possible that there may be an underspend on the salaries budget because of the time taken to recruit.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department had two main areas of underspend in 2002–03, namely staff costs and capital expenditure. In the later months of 2002–03, the Department was successful in recruiting staff as a result of a programme of continuous recruitment coupled with the overall position in the market for lawyers. This means that the Department is well placed to achieve the budgeted complement for 2003–04. The Department's major capital projects are on course for completion in accordance with their individual project targets and significant increases in expenditure over the previous year's levels will be achieved in 2003–04 as several major projects come on stream.

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  The total budget for the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers for the financial year 2002–03 was £3.1 million. Although figures have not yet been finalised, it is not expected that there will be any significant underspend for that period.

  EU Committees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many officials in the Department serve on EU committees or working parties. [116076]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 2 June 2003]:

  None of the Departments for which the Attorney General holds Ministerial responsibility has staff that serve on EU committees or working parties.

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department does not have responsibility for any EU committees or working groups. However, from time to time the Department's lawyers are requested to, and do, assist officials from the lead Departments on working groups.

  Partnership Agreements
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Solicitor-General whether she plans to conclude a partnership agreement with the trade unions representing the staff in her Department. [117452]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer on 10 June 2003]:

  Crown Prosecution Service

  Crown Prosecution Service staff are represented by two trade unions: the Association of First Division civil servants (FDA) and the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS). The Crown Prosecution Service signed a partnership agreement with the FDA on 26 March 1999. However, there is no such agreement with the PCS.

  Serious Fraud Office

  The Serious Fraud Office is a small Department. It currently has no plans to conclude a formal partnership agreement with staff trade unions although it continues to work with those trade unions in the spirit set out in the Cabinet Office/CCSU partnership agreement, combining both the formal and informal approach appropriate to the size of organisation.

  HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate

  There is no partnership agreement as such. However, HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate attaches great importance to ensuring effective consultation and involvement of staff and encourages staff to join an appropriate trade union and to play an active part within it, although it is of course, a personal decision whether or not to join a trade union.

  Following the move to independent status at the end of 2000 HM Crown Prosecution Service Directorate, following discussion with the relevant trade union formed a Whitley Council. The inaugural meeting was held on 1 May 2001 with the constitution being formally signed by the Management and Departmental Trade Union Side on 18 June 2001. Meetings are productive for both sides and are held quarterly.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department is presently holding discussions with trade unions with a view to introducing a partnership agreement in the Department.
  1036W
  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  The Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers is a Department of only some 35 staff, virtually all of whom are on secondment from other Government Departments. Individual members of staff benefit from whatever arrangements with the trade unions that have been entered into by their parent Department.

CABINET OFFICE

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the editorial control exercised by the Cabinet Office over advice published by the Food Standards Agency. [118806]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office exercises no control over advice published by the Food Standards Agency.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Digital Broadcasting
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proposals she has for a change in the cost of television licences for households in areas unable to receive(a) digital terrestrial television and (b) digital audio broadcasting. [119253]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government have no such proposals. The television licence fee is a payment for permission to instal or use television to receive any television programme service and does not vary according to the range of services that can be received. In any case, the great majority of households which are unable to receive digital terrestrial broadcasts can receive the same channels, including all the BBC's licence fee funded digital services, via digital satellite.

  Historic Town Walls
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what plans she has to strengthen the role of English Heritage in protecting historic town walls; and if she will make a statement; [117402]

  (2) what action she proposes to take under the terms of the Government's policy statement, "The Historic Environment: A Force for Our Future" of December 2001 in respect of historic town walls; and if she will make a statement. [117403]

  Dr. Howells
  The protection of historic town walls falls within the review of heritage protection legislation announced in "The Historic Environment: A Force for cur Future", and currently being carried out by the Department in partnership with English Heritage. One major aim of the review is to ensure that the future framework for managing the historic environment enables a more comprehensive view to be taken of historic assets such as historic town walls than is possible under current legislation.

  Landmarks
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the criteria which must be met in order to conserve landmarks. [118000]

  Dr. Howells
  'Landmarks' as a term could cover many features of the built and natural environment. There are two statutory designations that fall within the remit of this Department: listing and scheduling.

  The Secretary of State's criteria for listing buildings are: architectural interest; historical interest; close historical associations with nationally important people or events and group value.

  The Secretary of State's criteria for scheduling ancient monuments are: period; rarity; documentation; group value; survival/condition; fragility/vulnerability; diversity and potential.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to expand the criteria for conserving landmarks. [118001]

  Dr. Howells
  The protection of landmarks, whether scheduled monuments or listed buildings, falls within the review of heritage protection legislation announced in 'The Historic Environment: A Force for our Future' and currently being carried out by the Department in partnership with English Heritage. The review aims to put in place a framework for managing the historic environment which enables a more comprehensive view to be taken of historic assets than is possible under current legislation.

  Olympic Games
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to her statement of 15 May 2003,Official Report, columns 477–78, on the Olympic Games 2012, how much funding from existing Lottery money will be re-directed to a London Olympic Games from the (a) Community Fund, (b) New Opportunities Fund, (c) Arts Council, (d) Heritage Lottery Fund, (e) sports councils, (f) film councils and (g) other distribution organisations. [118185]

  Tessa Jowell
  The statement of 15 May refers to an overall contribution of up to £1.5 billion from the National Lottery to the cost of staging the 2012 Olympic Games.

  The National Lottery Commission's prudent assessment is that new Olympic Lottery games could generate £750 million in the period 2005–2012, however it does not discount the possibility of the initiatives outperforming this estimate. It is currently expected that half of this total will be raised through Olympic Lottery games where the income will be hypothecated for hosting the Olympics. A further £340 million will be derived sought from planned spending/expenditure by the established sports distributors.

  Were it required, any outstanding balance would/will be met by changing the percentage shares of Lottery income passing to the existing Good Causes after 2009. A review of those shares would have taken place whether or not London was bidding to host the Olympics.
  1038W
  Preliminary estimates provided by Camelot, and assessed by the National Lottery Commission, suggest that any negative impact on income on the existing good causes from Olympic Lottery games would be small—4 per cent. for the remainder of the Camelot licence period, until 2009. Until 2009 the impact of Olympic Lottery games on the existing Good Causes is unlikely to be more than 4 per cent.

  It is too early to say what the impact on individual distributing bodies will be. As noted in the original statement, the whole Olympic funding package, including the Lottery element, will be reviewed in 2005 when much clearer estimates of the costs involved in the Olympic project will be available.

  Scottish Land Fund
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the average size of grant awarded by the Scottish Land Fund has been in each year since its creation(a) including and (b) excluding awards in respect of feasibility studies. [118335]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information is as follows:

  (a) During its first full reporting year (April 2001 to March 2002), the Scottish Land Fund made 46 grants worth a total of £5,614,959, with an average grant size of £122,064.

  (b) When technical assistance grants are excluded from the calculation, this average increases to £214,345.

  (a) During its second full reporting year (April 2002 to March 2003), the Scottish Land Fund made 55 grants with a total value of £3,121,375, with an average grant size of £56,752.

  (b) When technical assistance grants are excluded from the calculation, this average increases to £83,151.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Payments
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 3 June 2003,Official Report, column 50W, on benefit order books, what the budget is for the exceptions service being developed by his Department as an alternative to the direct payment of benefits; and if he will make a statement on the resources being allocated to the exceptions service in each of the next three financial years. [118891]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The cost of the exceptions service will depend on(a) the details of the service which we are currently developing and (b) the number of customers paid by this method.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if the term "bank account" in his Department's Spending Review 2002 PSA target to pay 89 per cent. of benefit customers by direct transfer to their bank account by 2005 includes both bank accounts and Post Office card accounts. [118899]
  1039W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department has a published Public Service Agreement that by 2005, 85 per cent. of customers will have their benefits paid by Direct Payment. Direct Payment includes both bank and building society current and basic accounts and the Post Office card account.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number of women teaching assistants employed as term-time workers; and what plans he has to enable term-time workers who average less than 16 hours a week to claim jobseeker's allowance. [117923]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information on the number of women teaching assistants employed as term-time workers is not held centrally.

  Term-time workers who work on average less than 16 hours a week can already claim jobseeker's allowance, provided they meet the other conditions of entitlement.

  Carers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on his policy on the eligibility of former carers of people affected by asbestosis under 45 years of age for bereavement benefit. [117110]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Bereavement Benefits were introduced on 9 April 2001, and for the first time extended support to both widows and widowers following the death of a spouse. These new benefits concentrate the help available where it is most needed: on immediate needs; on families with children; and on older widows and widowers, who are more likely to have been out of the labour market for some time.

  The Bereavement Payment, a lump sum payment of 2,000 payable mmediately to help with costs arising on bereavement, and Widowed Parent's Allowance are both available to those under 45 years of age where they satisfy the qualifying conditions.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when existing CSA cases will be calculated on the basis of the legislation which came into effect on 3 March. [118907]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) on 22 May 2003,Official Report, columns 918–19W.

  Job Centre/Benefit Office Amalgamation
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many job losses are anticipated in each region and nation from the amalgamation of job centres with benefit offices; how he plans to achieve these job losses and over what timescale; and what consultation is planned with hon. Members whose constituents may be affected. [114953]
  1040W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Jobcentre Plus, David Anderson. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mr. David Anderson to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 12 June 2003:
  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning job losses as the result of Jobcentre Plus roll out. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The national roll-out of Jobcentre Plus is bringing together Jobcentres and Benefit Offices to form new integrated offices. As part of the last spending review, the Government agreed to a major investment plan for the department including over £2bn for rolling out of Jobcentre Plus. A significant part of this investment will be used for better technology, improved training and modernised business processes. As a result we will, over time, need fewer staff to provide enhanced services to our customers.
  In our early planning for each Jobcentre Plus district we are sharing our proposals for service delivery with a wide variety of people and organisations. While these are determined by local management they will include, for example, local MPs, Local Authorities, service delivery partners, employers' representatives, Citizens Advice Bureaux, welfare rights organisations, other Government Agencies, Health Authorities, Housing Associations, our staff and trade union representatives. After views and comments have been taken on board District Managers then share the finally agreed plans with the people and groups described above.
  For districts introducing the new service in 2002/03 the main communications exercises took place between June and September, and we were pleased to receive comments and views on many aspects of our plans. We have taken account of those views, changed our plans where appropriate and responded to those who contacted us.
  Jobcentre Plus plans to reduce its staff numbers to 76,600 by March 2006, equivalent to a 3.5 per cent reduction. However, staffing levels are planned to remain relatively stable over the next year. Regional plans have yet to be agreed for Jobcentre Plus.
  While the precise impact will be different in different parts of the country and there may be areas of greater difficulty, the planned reductions in staffing will be carefully managed and are within our overall margins of staff turnover. We expect therefore to manage this reduction by moving staff to other parts of the Department for Work and Pensions or through natural wastage.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Jobcentre Services
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people are employed by the jobcentre services in the Bridgwater constituency. [115612]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Jobcentre Plus, David Anderson. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mr. David Anderson to Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger, dated 12 June 2003:
  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning how many people are employed by the job services in the Bridgwater constituency. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  There are a total of 143 staff employed by Jobcentre Plus in the Bridgwater constituency—37 employed at the Bridgwater Jobcentre, 12 employed at Burnham on Sea Jobcentre Plus and 94 staff at the Bridgwater Social Security office. Some functions take

  1041W
  place at Bridgwater for the whole of the Somerset District, including the District Control Point, Jobseeker Direct and Third Party payments. These are all staffed by Jobcentre Plus staff.
  The District is currently undergoing the conversion of its Jobcentres and Social Security offices into Jobcentre Plus offices. The Bridgwater offices are due to become Jobcentre Plus offices from 28 July 2003. The Burnham on Sea office has already been converted.
  No reductions in staff are planned in the Somerset district, however there will be a redeployment of work across the district, for example Social Fund work will be moved from Taunton to Bridgwater.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Standard Local Housing Allowance
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to allow housing benefit claimants sufficient time to move to a cheaper private rental area before being subject to the proposed standard local housing allowance. [118492]

  Malcolm Wicks
  In the ten Pathfinder areas where the standard local housing allowance will be introduced, local authorities will contact people affected by the new scheme to let them know about the change in the way their benefit is calculated.

  We propose to protect existing benefit recipients at the point of transfer if they would lose out under the new scheme. As a result, no one will be forced to move to a cheaper area because of a fall in the amount of housing benefit they receive.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many unemployment benefit (Med 3) forms have been reported lost in the last year; and what investigations have been carried out by his Department into missing unemployment benefit (Med 3) forms. [116463]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We are not aware of any major problem with lost or missing Med 3 medical statements. We do not record how many Med 3 medical statements are reported lost each year and we have not carried out any investigations into this matter. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific case in mind I will look into it if he writes to me with specific details.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Dr. Desmond Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what lessons have been learned from the change from working families tax credit for the implementation of the pension credit. [118665]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department for Work and Pensions has learned a number of lessons from previous take-up campaigns, including working families tax credit, and has adopted a measured take-up approach for pension credit. The Department will, during the period when advance applications for pension credit can be made, continue to evaluate the effectiveness of the marketing campaign in the light of current and previous experience and make any refinements needed to ensure that pensioners take up their entitlement.

  Zaccheus Trust
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what response he has made to recent representations from Zaccheus 2000. [118906]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Both Ministers and officials from the Department have received numerous representations from the Zaccheus Trust. The majority of these representations centre on the issue of "budget standards" and minimum incomes.

  In the most recent response, of 4 June 2003, my right hon. and noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Baroness Hollis of Heigham, responded to an inquiry from the Trust dated 16 May. This inquiry was regarding our 'Measuring Child Poverty—Preliminary Conclusions' document, copies of which are available in the Library.

  My right hon. and noble Friend responded to the inquiry by confirming that the recently published preliminary conclusions encompassed the views of those who formally responded to the original 'Measuring Child Poverty' consultation exercise. Baroness Hollis stated that several respondents to the consultation had included views on budget standards" and they were therefore properly reflected in the response analysis and also in the conclusions set out in the document.

  My right hon. and noble Friend also reiterated, as stated in the response document, that further methodical work will be carried out before finalising any new approach to measuring child poverty in the long term.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the government of Bangladesh on the setting up of parliamentary committees in the Bangladeshi Parliament. [118142]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the setting up of parliamentary committees with the Bangladesh Foreign Minister when they met on 21 May 2003. Our High Commissioner also raised the issue with the Bangladesh Speaker at the end of April and with the Deputy Speaker and the Opposition Chief Whip in May.

  Our High Commission in Dhaka is in regular dialogue with the Bangladesh government to promote the need for better governance including the importance of a fully participatory Parliament.

  Departmental Website
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions he has taken or is taking to ensure that the websites of his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are accessible to partially sighted and blind people; and if he will make a statement. [117350]
  1043W
  Mr. MacShane
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office have taken a number of measures to ensure their suite of websites are accessible.

  The FCO main website, i-UK website, UK Visas and new embassy and high commission websites have all been built in line with the 'Guidelines for Government Websites' published by the Cabinet Office, which lays down comprehensive guidance on accessibility. The FCO web team have also consulted the Royal National Institute of the Blind (RNIB) on issues of accessibility relating to design and functionality of the websites and have put several of their recommendations into practice. In particular we have implemented several features specifically for the benefit of those who are partially sighted or blind, namely a text-only version, government standard access keys and HTML that validates to the internationally accepted standards set by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).

  EU Enlargement
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on EU enlargement. [118500]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed EU Enlargement with EU counterparts during the European Conference on 17 April. He also has such discussions with EU counterparts in Brussels on a regular monthly basis, in the forum of the General Affairs and External Relations Council. EU Enlargement is also a frequent subject of discussion during other less formal contacts with EU counterparts, at both Ministerial and official levels.

  EU Treaties (Marine Produce)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the provisions in existing treaties on which claims to exclusive competence over the marine produce of the sea in the draft EU treaty are based. [117998]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Union's exclusive competence in respect of "the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy" as set out in Article 1–12 of the draft constitution derives from a variety of sources. These sources are EC Treaty Articles dealing with agriculture, Regulations adopted establishing the common fisheries policy. (The current regulation is Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy), and Article 102 of the Act concerning the conditions of Accession and the Adjustments of the Treaties annexed to the UK's Act of Accession.

  The European Court of Justice held in Case C-804/79 that "since the expiration on 1 January 1979 of the transitional period laid down by Article 102 of the Act of Accession, power to adopt, as part of the Common Fisheries Policy, measures relating to the conservation of the resources of the sea has belonged fully and definitively to the Community."

  China
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent steps he has taken to support the human rights of Falun Gong practitioners in(a) China and (b) Hong Kong. [118469]

  Mr. Rammell
  We regularly raise our concerns about the treatment of Falun Gong adherents in China with the Chinese authorities both in bilateral meetings and at the UK/China Human Rights Dialogue, the last round of which was in November last year.

  We have followed closely developments involving Falun Gong in Hong Kong and have reported on these in the Foreign Secretary's regular reports to Parliament on the implementation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong. Falun Gong remain free to practise in Hong Kong. We have raised the question of Falun Gong with the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government in the context of their preparations to implement national security legislation under Article 23 of the Basic Law.

  Guantanamo Bay
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to challenge the legality of the detention by the US of UK citizens at Guantanamo Bay. [117611]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have been pressing the US to move forward with the process of determining the detainees' future and shall continue to do so. The detentions cannot be allowed to drag on indefinitely. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 26 February 2003,Official Report, column 257 "…we are still receiving quite valuable information from people who are there [Guantanamo Bay]. However, I agree that it is an irregular situation and we would certainly want to bring it to an end as swiftly as possible." The US is aware of our view.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to Indonesia about the use of UK arms in Aceh; [118432]

  (2) what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to Indonesia about the use of UK-produced Hawk jets in Aceh. [118433]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) today (UIN 118135, 118139 and 118140).

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the policy on arms sales to Indonesia has changed since 2001; and what the current policy is. [118434]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  All export licence applications are rigorously assessed on a case by case basis against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria taking account of the circumstances prevailing at the time and other announced Government policies.
  1045W
  Our criteria clearly set out our commitment to take account of the risk that exports might be used for either internal repression or external aggression.

  On the situation regarding sales to Indonesia, I refer my right hon. Friend to the answers I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) today (UIN 118135, 118138, 118139 and 118140).

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what discussions he has had with the Indonesian government this year concerning the use by the Indonesian armed forces of military equipment exported by the UK; and if he will make a statement about the UK's future relations with the Indonesian armed forces; [118135]

  (2) what reports he has received concerning the use of military equipment exported from the UK in military operations in Aceh, Indonesia; and what measures he has taken to ensure that the equipment is used in compliance with guarantees given by the Indonesian government; [118139]

  (3) what representations he has made to the government of Indonesia concerning the use of Hawk aircraft in Aceh; and if he will make a statement. [118140]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I visited Indonesia on 3–4 June 2003, and raised the issue of British-supplied military equipment with President Megawati and senior members of the Indonesian government. I reminded them of the assurances about the use of British-supplied military equipment in Aceh, and warned of the possible consequences for defence sales and defence relationships if there was a breach of the assurances. I also stressed that Indonesian military action in Aceh should be proportionate and in accordance with international standards on human rights.

  The Indonesian government confirmed that British-supplied Hawk aircraft were used in Aceh on 19 May 2003 but claimed they were not used in violation of the assurances. We will be using all available sources of information to monitor the use of British-supplied equipment and will follow up all credible allegations on the misuse of British-military equipment.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes have been made since May 1997 to guarantees given by the Indonesian government concerning the use of military equipment exported from the UK; and what guarantees apply to the use of such equipment. [118138]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Before August 2002 the Indonesian government provided assurances that British-supplied military equipment would not be used in Aceh, or be used anywhere in Indonesia against civilians to prevent the exercise of their rights of free expression, assembly and association of other international human rights standards. The Indonesian government added that if, against expectations, they were to contemplate the use of such equipment in Aceh at a later stage they would inform the British government in advance.

  In August 2002 the British Government received advance notification from the Indonesian government that they may deploy British-built military equipment to
  1046W
  Aceh for casualty removal and logistics. Hawk jets do not perform these tasks. Ministers agreed in September 2002 to fresh assurances that British-built military equipment would not be used to violate human rights anywhere in Indonesia nor would the equipment be used offensively.

  The assurances apply to all British-supplied military equipment. I emphasised the continuing importance we attach to the assurances during my recent visit to Indonesia.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether it is his policy that the reconstruction of the(a) infrastructure and (b) private homes damaged or destroyed in the invasion of Iraq should be paid for by Iraq. [111710]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have committed £115 million to the humanitarian and reconstruction effort in Iraq with a further £95 million set aside to support further needs as they arise. We are working hard through the Coalition Provisional Authority to ensure that progress is being made in restoring the civilian infrastructure, including with the Iraqi Ministries. Iraq's long-term reconstruction needs will be substantial and it is too soon to determine specific allocations for the reconstruction of private property.

  Israel
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the obligatory waivers absolving the Israeli Defence Force from responsibility if it shoots foreign nationals while in the Gaza Strip. [118473]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Following pressure from the international community in May, Israel withdrew the requirement for people entering the Gaza Strip to sign waivers. However, we remain concerned about restrictions on access to Gaza that continue to hinder the international community from carrying out humanitarian work there. We expect Israel to do all it can to ease restrictions, without delay, both in Gaza and the West Bank.

  North Korea
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his assessment of the extent of religious persecution in North Korea; what measures the Department has been able to initiate to indicate the concerns of Her Majesty's Government to the Government of North Korea; and what initiatives it has taken on behalf of named individuals persecuted. [118889]

  Mr. Rammell
  We are concerned about the reports of serious human rights violations, including religious persecution, in North Korea. But the lack of access for independent monitors makes it difficult for the international community to verify these reports. Our establishment of diplomatic relations and an Embassy in North Korea enable us to use official channels to raise human rights issues, including religious persecution, at regular intervals.
  1047W
  The UK also supports EU efforts in this area. The EU has been monitoring the situation closely, and took the decision to table a resolution at this year's UN Commission on Human Rights. The resolution, which was adopted by a wide margin on 16 April, urges North Korea to co-operate with the UN human rights mechanisms. We hope that such pressure will bring about a positive change in North Korea with respect to religious tolerance and the observance of human rights.

  United States
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received regarding the proposed sale of the consular residence in Pacific Avenue, San Francisco; and if he will make a statement. [118638]

  Mr. Rammell
  Since 1999 my colleagues and I have replied to eight letters from hon. Friends and hon. Members on this subject. Three were from my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Derek Wyatt). We have also replied to seven written Questions from him. He submitted an Early Day Motion in April and I discussed the matter personally with him on 7 May.

  Some of the letters from hon. Friends and Members were prompted by representations from the British American Chamber of Commerce (Northern California Branch) who have also written to me direct and to other Ministers. The President of the British-American Business Council has also expressed his views, as has the Mayor of San Francisco.

  These representations have left us in no doubt that the Pacific Heights house is much appreciated by the local British community. After reading through the relevant papers I have nevertheless concluded that the sale should go ahead. It is an important element in our programme of "asset recycling", aimed at improving value for money and modernising our estate. After meeting the cost of a new Residence, the sale will yield capital funds that the FCO can re-invest in additional facilities elsewhere. I believe that the new Residence, which is closer to the normal size guidelines, will prove operationally effective while costing far less to own and run.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received from the British High Commissioner to Sri Lanka on the conditions in which the Tamil community in Sri Lanka are living; and if he will make a statement. [118144]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Most Tamils live in the north and east (the most conflict-affected areas), or in the hill country (the plantation sector). However, there are communities throughout the island and at all levels of society. Therefore the living conditions vary greatly. Since the ceasefire in February 2002 conditions have improved in the north and east, and we hope that this will continue as the peace rocess moves forward.

  State Visits
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy that the Foreign Affairs Committee should be included or represented in the programme of events for state visits to the UK; and if he will make a statement. [118895]

  Mr. Straw
  I welcome my hon. Friend's suggestion.

  In future, we will consult heads of state making a state visit about FAC involvement, in the early stages of planning for such visits.

  United Nations
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future of the UN. [118094]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government are committed to maintaining a strong and effective United Nations. We support the UN Secretary-General in his efforts to make the organisation more efficient and to focus UN activities on high priority areas such as counter-terrorism, human rights, poverty reduction and sustainable development. We are committed to reform of the Security Council to make it more representative of the modern world, including an increase in both permanent and non-permanent membership.

  Western Sahara
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held with the government of Morocco covering the future of the Western Sahara; and if he will make a statement. [118201]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The situation in Western Sahara was discussed when my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met Mohamed Benaissa, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Morocco on 20 May 2003. The Foreign Secretary reiterated that he hoped to see agreement between the parties which would resolve the dispute.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Trespass
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent changes there have been in the law of trespass to allow individuals to seek compensation where their premises are trespassed upon for the commercial advantage of another. [117642]

  Yvette Cooper
  There have been no recent changes to the law in this area. Trespass to land is a civil wrong, the most common form of which is committed when an unlawful visitor directly physically interferes with the owner's land without lawful justification. Once the boundary has been breached the landowner may approach the courts to seek an injunction to restrain the continuation of the trespass. The landowner may also have a legal cause of action for damages suffered because of the trespass. The recovery of damages might
  1049W
  be only a small amount for the technical trespass, unless actual damage can be proved such as the cost of repairing a fence or gate broken by the trespasser.

  Pay Audits
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress has been made on completing a pay audit in the Lord Chancellor's Department and its non-departmental public bodies to measure any disadvantage in terms of remuneration for(a) women, (b) ethnic minorities and (c) people with disabilities; and if she will publish the results of such an audit. [117433]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In common with other Government departments and agencies, and in accordance with Cabinet Office guidelines, my Department has undertaken a gender equality audit of pay and related systems. An action plan drawn up from the audit has been submitted to the Cabinet Office. Although not a Cabinet Office requirement, an audit of pay is also being undertaken in respect of ethnicity and disability. The commitment to conduct gender equality audits of pay does not extend formally to NDPBs, but the Legal Services Commission has undertaken such an audit and proposes also to undertake a pay audit of ethnicity and disability. The Children and Family Courts Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) proposes to conduct an equality audit later this year, once terms and conditions of its staff have been harmonised. I expect action plans arising from the audits to be placed in the Library of the House in due course.

  Salisbury Courts
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on the future of the magistrates courts and Crown courts in Salisbury. [117328]

  Yvette Cooper
  It is planned that a new combined courthouse in Salisbury will be opened in 2005/06. My officials are currently working with the Wiltshire magistrates courts committee and Wiltshire county council to develop plans for a 4 court centre. This new court will bring together magistrates Crown and county court facilities under one roof for the first time in Salisbury. The new courthouse will provide modern facilities for all users. In particular it will consider the needs of vulnerable witnesses and the Disabled.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Business Rates
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he intends to publish details of his proposals to allow local authorities to retain a proportion of increases in business rates attributable to new commercial developments within their area. [118956]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister intends to consult on this proposal later in the summer.

  Community Equipment Services
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much funding in total has been disbursed under the local authority promoting independence grant for community equipment services. [118209]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  In the years 2001 to 2003, while the promoting independence grant was available, some councils may have chosen to use it to help support the modernisation and integration of community equipment services. However, information on such amounts has not been collected centrally. The Department of Health continues to support the development of these services through additions to baseline national health service and social services allocations. In addition, £7.4 million has been made available to councils for community equipment as part of the access and systems grant in 2003–04.

  Counselling Services
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what arrangements are made in his Department to allow staff to access counselling services. [111938]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's counselling and support service is available to all its staff, including those in its agencies. Staff are able to access the service direct during office hours about any issue, personal or work related.

  Departmental Expenditure (Training)
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the(a) cash and (b) real terms training budget has been each year for his Department; and how much in each year in (i) cash and (ii) real terms was directed to the training of young people. [106821]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was established in May 2002. From May 2002 to the end of March 2003 expenditure on training totalled £3.2 million. There is no specific budget for the training of young people. In accordance with Government-wide resource accounting and budgeting guidelines, expenditure on training and other services is recorded on an accruals basis; there is therefore no record of expenditure on a cash basis.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what analysis he has made of the responses received to his consultation exercise on level of interest in a referendum in respect of elected regional assemblies. [118287]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is considering views, information and evidence that has been received about the level of interest in holding referendums on elected regional assemblies. Decisions will be announced shortly as to which region(s) should proceed towards referendums and a summary of responses to the soundings exercise will be published at the same time.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Advocacy Services
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reform funding for citizens advocacy groups to improve the co-ordination of advocacy work by volunteers. [118294]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government attaches great importance to the development of advocacy services as one of the means that enable the views of patients to be represented.

  Our policies for improving services for people with learning disabilities, their families and carers are set out in the White Paper "Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century" (Cm 5086) published in March 2001. The importance of advocacy is a theme running throughout the White Paper: effective advocacy services can make a real difference to the lives of people with learning disabilities and their families by helping them to put forward their views and play an active part in planning and designing services.

  "Valuing People" announced the creation of two new funds, the Implementation Support Fund and the Learning Disability Development Fund, to provide central support for key aspects of the strategy. Money from the Implementation Support Fund is being used to support and develop self and citizen advocacy projects across the country. Two voluntary organisations, the British Institute of Learning Disabilities (BILD) and Values into Action (VIA) are running separate schemes to develop and fund citizen advocacy and self advocacy respectively on the Department of Health's behalf. Both organisations have steering groups to oversee the projects and to ensure fairness in the way the funds are allocated.

  £900,000 from the Implementation Support Fund was allocated to advocacy projects in 2001–02 and £1 million in 2002–03; £1 million is being allocated in 2003–04. A further £300,000 was allocated in 2001–02 to administer the funding schemes and support development workers to work with and strengthen existing advocacy schemes and help set up new ones: this amount increased to £400,000 in both 2002–03 and 2003–04.

  We announced in our report on learning disability, "Making Change Happen" (HC514–11), published in April 2003, that the Implementation Support Fund would continue until March 2006. The fund will support the same areas of work as at present. The learning disability task force, which has members drawn from both the self and citizen advocacy movements, will be involved in discussions about the detailed use of the Support Fund.

  Mental health policies pay equal importance to the use of advocacy. The draft Mental Health Bill, published on 25 June 2002, provides for the first time that specialist mental health advocacy must be available for all patients being treated under compulsory powers and their nominated persons. This new duty ensures that patients can have the help of specialist advocacy when it is most needed. There are also proposals in the draft Bill for safeguards, including access to advocacy,
  1052W
  for some adult patients who have a long-term incapacity to consent and who are in a hospital or nursing home receiving treatment for a serious mental disorder.

  Airguns
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce a register of dealers for sales of airguns. [118055]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  We do not believe that a register of dealers would of itself help in tackling the problems caused by the misuse of air weapons.

  Instead as part of the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, we are increasing from fourteen to seventeen the age at which a young person can own an air weapon and introducing further controls on unsupervised use. We are also introducing a new offence of having an air weapon in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the extension of powers to be made available under the provisions of the Antisocial Behaviour Bill to(a) community support officers and (b) accredited persons. [117890]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Subject to Parliamentary approval the Anti-social Behaviour Bill will extend the following powers to community support officers (CSOs) and accredited persons:

  CSOs only
  The power to disperse groups

  Both CSOs and accredited persons
  The power to issue a fixed penalty notice for graffiti and fly-posting.
  The power to issue a fixed penalty notice to parents for truancy.
  The power to stop cyclists in order to issue a fixed penalty notice for cycling on a footpath.

  Accredited persons only

  Accredited persons will also be given the power to issue penalty notices for disorder (CSOs already have this power). As they do not have the power to detain, accredited persons will not be able to issue penalty notices for the offences of disorderly behaviour while drunk in a public place and being drunk in a highway, other public place or licensed premises. They will, though, be able to issue penalty notices for the following offences:
  Throwing fireworks in a thoroughfare.
  Knowingly giving false alarm to a fire brigade.
  Trespassing on a railway.
  Throwing stones etc at trains and other things on railways.
  Buying or attempting to buy alcohol for consumption in bar in licensed premises by a person under 18.
  Wasting police time or giving false report.
  Using public telecommunications systems for sending messages known to be false in order to cause annoyance.
  Behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.

  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure that(a) the police, (b) housing associations and (c) local councils are informed of (i) the powers available to them

  1053W
  to tackle anti-social behaviour and (ii) the powers to be made available to them under the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill. [117892]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The National Director of the Anti-Social Behaviour Unit and members of her team visited many Local Authority areas where they have met with local councils, police, residents, attended public meetings and spoken at conferences to highlight both current and new powers available for tackling antisocial behaviour.

  The Anti-Social Behaviour Unit is now considering a range of options, to look how to ensure all relevant people and organisations are aware of the powers available to them.

  Asylum Centres
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason the number of performance points incurred under the contract for each asylum detention centre is commercially confidential. [118612]

  Beverley Hughes
  Commercial confidentially in contracts is designed to protect the integrity of the competitive process. It is not appropriate to release information which would undermine the policy.

  Our contracts reserve the right for us to publish information about the performance of contractors in response to inquiries from Parliament, its Members and Officers.

  In the light of this I am now able to release the following information concerning Dungavel Immigration Removal Centre.

  Dungavel Immigration Removal Centre

  Performance points

  First year of operation: September 2001—August 2002 (operating schedule D)

  1 escape—500 points

  Second year of operation:

  2 escapes—500 points x 2

  September 2002—May 2003

  2 failures to release—500 points x 2

  Schedule G of the contract "Performance Measures" is already available in the Library.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Immigration and Nationality Directorate staff have assisted in the deportation of asylum seekers living in the London Borough of Harrow in the last 12 months. [117924]

  Beverley Hughes
  It is not possible to say how many Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) staff have assisted in the removal of asylum seekers from the London Borough of Harrow. This is because neither IND or Immigration Service staff concentrate on the removal of asylum seekers living in specific boroughs or towns, but instead concentrate on the removal of asylum seekers from the geographical area that is covered by each Local Enforcement Office (LEO).

  British Overseas Territories
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many British Overseas Territories citizens have applied for British citizen passports since 21 May 2002. [117920]

  Beverley Hughes
  At the end of May 2003, 12,331 applications for British citizen passports had been received from British Overseas Territories citizens resident in Overseas Territories. No information is available on applications made outside the Territories.

  Drugs
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many criminal groups involved in supplying class A drugs to the UK have been dismantled each year since May 2000. [117918]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The numbers of groups involved in supplying class A drugs disrupted or dismantled each year since May 2000, are as follows:

  Numbers

  1 April 2000–31 March 2001:

  306

  1 April 2001–31 March 2002:

  343

  1 April 2002–31 March 2003:

  not yet available

  Cloned Number Plates
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new action the Metropolitan police will take in respect of cloned number plates on vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [101214]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The introduction of congestion charging in the centre of London provides additional opportunities to identify vehicles with cloned number plates and for the Metropolitan police to take action against them. The Metropolitan police are currently considering how they can get the best crime reduction return from the investment of police resources in this work. But existing procedures already provide for cloned registration numbers to be entered on the Police National Computer and on the databases used by police Automatic Number Plate Reader operations. This increases the likelihood of cloned vehicles coming to police attention and appropriate action being taken.

  Community Support Officers
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the powers available to(a) community support officers and (b) accredited persons. [117889]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The following powers are available to both community support officers (CSOs) and accredited persons:Power to issue fixed penalty notices for dog fouling, littering and riding a bicycle on a footpath.

  1055W
  Power to request a name and address for fixed penalty offences and offences that cause injury alarm and distress to another person or damage or loss of another's property.
  Power to request the name and address of a person acting in an anti-social manner.
  Power to request a person to stop drinking in a designated public area and to surrender open containers of alcohol.
  Power to confiscate alcohol from Young Persons.
  Power to confiscate cigarettes and tobacco products from young people.
  Power to stop vehicles for testing.
  Power to regulate traffic for the purpose of escorting abnormal loads.
  Power to require the removal of abandoned vehicles.

  The following powers are only available to CSOs. The first two, concerning detention, are being piloted in six police force areas only for the first two years:
  Power to detain a person for up to 30 minutes pending the arrival of a constable (or to accompany that person to a police station with the person's agreement).
  Power to use reasonable force to detain a person or prevent him from making off.
  Power of entry to save life or limb, or to prevent serious damage to property.
  Power to maintain and enforce a cordoned area established under the Terrorism Act. Power to seize vehicles used to cause alarm and distress,
  Power to stop vehicles for the purposes of a road check.
  Power to, when accompanied by a constable, stop and search vehicles and pedestrians under the Terrorism Act.

  CSOs also have the power to issue Penalty Notices for Disorder. This power is not currently in use and is awaiting the result of a police trial before commencement. Once commenced, CSOs will be able to issue Penalty Notices for the following offences:
  Being drunk on a highway, other public place or licensed premises.
  Disorderly behaviour while drunk in a public place.
  Throwing fireworks in a thoroughfare.
  Knowingly giving false alarm to a fire brigade.
  Trespassing on a railway.
  Throwing stones etc. at trains and other things on railways.
  Buying or attempting to buy alcohol for consumption in bar in licensed premises by a person under 18.
  Wasting police time or giving false report.
  Using public telecommunications systems for sending message known to be false in order to cause annoyance behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.

  As my hon. Friend will be aware, there are also currently provisions in the Anti Social Behaviour Bill to extend further the powers of both CSOs and accredited persons.

  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the results of the pilot projects being run to test the use of the power of detention by community support officers. [117891]
  1056W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Six forces are piloting the use of the power of detention by community support officers. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary are evaluating the pilots and are due to report after 2 December 2004 on the operation of the power in its first two years. At this stage it is still too early to report on any findings from the evaluation.

  Contingency Planning
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of the emergency services in the East Midlands Region have been supplied with full protective equipment including respirators for use in responding to a nuclear, biological or chemical terrorist attack. [116479]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 3 June 2003]: On police protective equipment I refer the right hon. and learned Member to the answer I gave on specialist training on 9 June 2003, Official Report, column 663W.

  On health service protective equipment I refer the right hon. Member to the answers my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Health (Mr. Lammy) gave on Ambulance Service and Accident and Emergency departments' equipment and training on 3 June 2003, Official Report, column 351W, 5 June 2003, Official Report, column 571W, and 9 June 2003, Official Report, column 693W.

  On fire service protective equipment, full protective equipment is not purchased solely for the purpose of responding to a CBRN terrorist attack. It is used in the response to accidents and in other day-to-day operations.

  The East Midlands Region has approximately 475 gas tight suits which are carried on conventional front line fire appliances and specialist vehicles—these are to be supplemented, in the short-term, by a further 40 suits which are being deployed imminently on two Interim Mass Decontamination Vehicles at appropriate locations within the region.

  The deployment of this equipment during emergencies is not tied to geographical regions and, depending on the nature and scale of the incident and if necessary, the East Midlands may receive equipment from or supply equipment to other regions via Mutual Aid Agreements—this is the case for both CBRN incidents and day-to-day operations.

  Family Visitor Appeals
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to publish the final report of the inter-departmental review of family visitor appeals. [117346]

  Beverley Hughes
  The report was published on 11 June 2003. Copies have now been placed in the Library.

  Heavy Goods Vehicle Thefts
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police authorities have a dedicated team to identify and bring to justice those involved in theft of and from heavy goods vehicles. [118565]
  1057W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Such teams, where they exist, are within police forces not police authorities. Police authorities publish annual and three-year strategic policing plans which set out local priorities and resources. But how those resources are to be used to deliver the local priorities is primarily a matter for Chief Officers. Information on how many forces have dedicated teams to combat thefts of and from heavy goods vehicles is not collected centrally.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many items have been lost once deposited at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate(a) in 2002 and (b) to date in 2003; and if he will make a statement. [117684]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Records are kept in respect of the numbers of searches that are conducted by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) Return of Passport Unit in respect of documents—mostly passports—whose immediate return are requested by their owners. In 2002 the Return of Passport Unit received 4,203 requests for the return of documents and issued 390 lost passport letters; as at 31 May this year. the Unit has received 1,774 requests for the return of documents and 308 lost passport letters have been issued. A range of measures including the setting up of secure handling areas and the early return of sponsors' passports are currently being put in place to significantly improve IND's ability to find and return documents at the time of request.

  Memorials (Safety)
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 24 February 2003,Official Report, column 580W, on Memorials (safety), when guidance will be issued to local authorities about the safety-testing of non-monolithic memorials without ground anchor fixing; and if he will list the organisations from which he has taken evidence. [118579]

  Paul Goggins
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn) on 24 February 2003,Official Report, column 579W. We are aiming to issue appropriate guidance on memorial safety to local burial authorities by the end of the year. The issues are being considered by a working group consisting of the following organisations:

  Association of Burial Authorities

  Confederation of Burial Authorities

  Cruse Bereavement Care

  English Heritage

  Federation of British Cremation Authorities

  Health and Safety Executive

  Institute of Burial and Cremation Administration

  1058W

  Local Government Association

  Muslim Council of Great Britain/Muslim Burial Council of Leicestershire

  National Association of Local Councils

  National Association of Memorial Masons (Chair)

  Society of Local Council Clerks

  Methadone
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department has done into(a) Subutex and (b) other substitutes for methadone. [118483]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Methadone is the preferred clinical option in the treatment of opioid dependency and is supported by strong international evidence base.

  There is a growing body of evidence for the efficacy of buprenorphine (Subutex) in the treatment of opioid dependence. The level of evidence does not suggest that buprenorphine should replace methadone as a substitution treatment, but rather that buprenorphine should now be considered an evidence-based addition to the range of pharmacological maintenance treatments. Much of the emerging evidence derives from other European countries and the evidence for efficacy of this treatment in Britain is very limited and based on very few studies.

  Clinical guidelines on the management of drug misuse and dependence were issued by the Department of Health in 1999 and outline a range of substitute drugs that doctors may prescribe as appropriate.

  Passports
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate his Department has made of the number of lost and stolen passports in circulation in the UK. [117128]

  Beverley Hughes
  The UK Passport Service (UKPS) records information on passports reported lost, stolen or unavailable. The information UKPS has recorded for the last five years has been shown in the following table:

  Passports lost, stolen or unavailable

  Number

  1998

  31,497

  1999

  62,364

  2000

  114,624

  2001

  148,230

  2002

  166,358

  A proportion of passports are reported lost or stolen at British Diplomatic posts abroad. This coupled with the fact that the UK Passport Service does not routinely receive notification of passports recovered by other authorities, makes it extremely difficult to make a reasonable estimate as to the number of such passports in circulation within the United Kingdom.

  The UKPS is introducing a more comprehensive system for recording and disseminating information on lost, stolen and recovered passports. This system is due to go live in December of this year. It will enable the timely and accurate collection and dissemination of

  1059W
  information on lost, stolen and recovered passports in the United Kingdom and by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) posts abroad.

  Police (Southend)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the police establishment is in Southend, West; and how many officers were in post on 1 June. [118514]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Southend, West is part of the Southend Basic Command Unit (BCU) of Essex police. Decisions about the deployment of officers between BCUs and other units of the force are matters for the Chief Constable (Mr. D. F. Stevens).

  Information is not collected centrally about the number of officers deployed to Basic Command Units as at 1 June. However, I refer the hon. Member to the reply by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) of 2 December 2002, Official Report, column 589W, setting out police strength for each Basic Command Unit for each force in England and Wales as at 31 March 2002.

  For Essex police as a whole, the latest figures show that at 30 September 2002 the force had 2,988 police officers, a record number, and at 31 March 2002 the force had 1,571 civilian staff.

  Prisons
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officers were incapacitated suffering from post traumatic stress related illness in each of the last five years. [116953]

  Paul Goggins
  Sickness absence is recorded in terms of the reason for absence although there is no specific category for post traumatic stress disorder. The following table provides the number of cases recorded among officer grade staff for stress related conditions in each year since April 1999. Reliable sickness absence information is not available prior to 1999.

  New cases of absence due to stress related conditions among officers

  1999–2000

  11,894

  2000–01

  1,964

  2001–02

  1,990

  2002–03

  2,164

  1Includes cases which began prior to 1 April 1999.

  Note:

  Figures relate to prison officer, senior officer and principal officer grades.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the impact on the prison population of the Criminal Justice Bill; and what consequential changes he plans to make to the level of provision in the prison estate; [115141]

  (2) if he will publish a prison population impact assessment for each part of the Criminal Justice Bill. [115142]
  1060W
  Paul Goggins
  The provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill which reform the sentencing framework will make it possible to ensure that the most serious violent, sexual and persistent offenders spend longer in prison while allowing other offenders to be dealt with by means of tougher and more effective community sentences. In addition, custody plus and custody minus will provide an option for those offenders whose offences are serious enough to justify custody, but where the concentration of rehabilitative work occurs in the community. The projected net effect on the prison population of the implementation of the provisions to reform the sentencing framework, is an increase of about 1,000 in the prison population by 2009. The impact is estimated to be about 500 once all the changes have been implemented and sufficient time has passed for their full effects to be seen.

  The firearms offences provisions in the Bill will provide for a mandatory minimum custodial sentence for unauthorised possession of a prohibited firearm. The estimated effect on the prison population of the implementation of these provisions, and the implementation of the provision providing for increase in penalties for certain driving-related offences causing death, is an increase of about 500 in the prison population.

  The effect of life sentence provisions in the Bill will provide for the determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence. It is assumed that the effect of these provisions on the prison population will not be felt for a decade. In around 20 years time, the projected effect on the prison population is estimated to be an increase of about 1,000 in the prison population. In around 30 to 60 years time, once all the changes have been implemented and when sufficient time has passed for the full effect to be seen, the impact is estimated to be in the order of 1,200.

  The restriction on bail for drug users provision will be piloted in selected court areas. The provision aims to reduce re-offending by encouraging drug-misusing offenders into effective drug treatment programmes where appropriate. Part of the pilot evaluation will focus on the likely impacts of the provision on prison population if it were to be extended more widely. A study is planned to assess the likely effect on the prison population of the provisions introducing a presumption against the grant of bail to defendants who have failed to surrender. The measure is intended to deter offenders from abusing bail.

  The Government is providing additional capacity. Spending Review 2000 and the 2003 budget provided funds for 2,820 additional prison places to be built at existing prisons. Two new prisons will also be opened at Ashford and Peterborough. Together with building programmes in progress, these two additional programmes will increase the total useable capacity of the prison service estate from 74,030 to around 78,700 by 2006.

  The prison service continues to investigate options for providing further increases in capacity over the coming years, as part of the Government's prison modernisation strategy. This is based on a combination

  1061W
  of expanding capacity in existing prisons that we want to keep in the long term and a programme to build new large multi-function prisons.

  Scottish Drugs Enforcement Agency
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Scottish Drugs Enforcement Agency. [118336]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department has an overarching role in monitoring progress against the UK drug strategy, taking account of the distinctive substance misuse strategies in the other countries of the UK. The Scottish Executive is responsible for setting the direction of the drug strategy in Scotland and monitoring its progress.

  The Scottish Drugs Enforcement Agency (SDEA) maintains regular contact with officials in the Home Office and other relevant Whitehall Departments.

  Sex Industry
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are being taken to ensure that women and young girls being illegally trafficked to work in the sex industry are identified at entry points into the UK; and if he will make a statement. [118150]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Home Office has recently published the 'trafficking toolkit', providing guidance for immigration and police officers on how to recognise a victim of trafficking and what to do if such a victim is encountered. The toolkit is available on-line at www.crimereduction.gov.uk/toolkits. An abridged version in hard copy has also been produced for widespread distribution to frontline workers such as police, Immigration Service and Social Services.

  Training provided to police and immigration officers is through the practical sharing of skills and experience across agencies. Additionally, two immigration officers on attachment to the National Crime Squad Immigration Crime Team (ICT) have attended a weeklong multi-agency 'training for trainers' trafficking course run by the Child and Women Abuse Studies Unit of the London Metropolitan University. They have cascaded the training to ICT colleagues.

  There is also work under way involving key agencies at principal entry points to identify children at risk, including pilot projects involving the Immigration Service, Police and Social Services at Heathrow and Dover.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which countries have been identified by his Department as entry and destination points for the illegal trafficking and trade of women and young girls for work in the sex industry. [118152]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Government's strategy recognises the importance of intelligence and joint operations in source and transit countries. Through the Reflex multi-agency taskforce on organised immigration crime, detailed intelligence assessments have been drawn up. These are operationally sensitive, but have been used to inform the deployment of a network of immigration liaison officers (ILOs) in order 1062W
  to develop intelligence and operational co-operation in source and transit countries. The ILOs are posted at key nexus points in eastern and south-eastern Europe with plans to increase the number of officers deployed.

  In addition, we have been working with key source and transit countries to develop their capability to tackle trafficking. Project Immpact, a UK-led EU initiative in Bosnia, which has led to the identification of trafficked women, is a good example of this. A second phase of Immpact will be commencing shortly in Serbia and Montenegro. Reflex Romania, a joint capacity-building exercise between UK and Romanian law enforcement, is another example of the work that is under way in the areas vulnerable to the threat of organised immigration crime.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provisions are(a) available and (b) being developed for victims of child trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation. [118153]

  Beverley Hughes
  Social services have a duty under the Children Act 1989 to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in need by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children's needs or, where appropriate, by arranging for the provision of services from other agencies. Child victims of trafficking are referred to social services to receive assistance and support based on their particular needs. They may arrive in this country as unaccompanied minors seeking asylum,or accompanied by an adult. In the latter case, if anyone who comes into contact with the child is concerned that the child is the victim of abuse or neglect, they should refer the child to the relevant local authority's social services department. Unaccompanied minors seeking asylum will also be referred to social services. This care will be determined by a needs assessment according to the Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families. Child victims of trafficking are likely to be in need of welfare services and—in many cases protection under the Children Act 1989.

  Where there is a risk to the life of a child or a likelihood of serious harm, an agency with statutory child protection powers, for example, the police or councils with social services responsibilities, will act quickly to secure the immediate initial safety of the child. In some cases, it may be necessary to ensure that the child remains in, or is removed to, a safe place. Under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 a local authority may provide accommodation for any child within their area if they consider that to do so would safeguard or promote the child's welfare. This may involve placing the child in a foster placement or it may place the child in a children's home.

  There are only very limited circumstances in which it is an option to hold a young person in secure accommodation. The Children Act 1989 permits that children may only be held in secure conditions if they satisfy certain specific grounds such as a likelihood of absconding together with a likelihood that injury would be caused to the young person themselves or others. This requires the approval of the courts.

  The Home Office trafficking toolkit has been produced to aid front line agencies such as social services, Immigration Services and police in recognising victims of

  1063W
  trafficking and treating them appropriately. The toolkit is available on-line at: www.crimereduction.gov.uk/ toolkits. An abridged version in hard copy has also been produced for widespread distribution to these workers.

  There is also work under way involving key agencies at principal entry points to identify children at risk, including pilot projects involving the Immigration Service, Police and Social Services at Heathrow and Dover.

  The Department of Health co-ordinate the National Plan for Protecting Children from Commercial Sexual Exploitation.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to work with international law enforcement agencies to tackle the trafficking of women, with particular reference to those from Eastern bloc countries; and if he will make a statement. [118155]

  Beverley Hughes
  In committing ourselves to tackling people trafficking, we recognise that effective action must be conducted with our international partners.

  Since 2000, all operational activity targeted against serious and organised criminal involvement in illegal immigration is co-ordinated through Reflex. Reflex has overseen the establishment of a network of immigration liaison officers in key source and transit countries whose role is to build up intelligence on routes and methods and support joint working to tackle criminal gangs. Immigration liaison officers are already posted at key nexus points in eastern and south-eastern Europe and the network will be extended shortly.

  Reflex has established close operational links with Europol, where a dedicated United Kingdom liaison officer is based, covering organised immigration crime. Europol has developed an action plan on trafficking, which was approved at the recent meeting of the ED Police Chief Task Force held by the Greek Presidency. This will form the basis for co-operation with EU candidate countries for joint operations to tackle trafficking networks.

  The UK is also supporting work by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe to develop an action plan covering common standards for tackling trafficking in the fields of law enforcement, prevention and legislation.

  In addition, the UK is also involved in a number of bilateral projects in Romania, Bosnia, Serbia and Montenegro.

  Number of vacant consultant posts (WTE1) in Northern Ireland by trust and duration

  Health and Social Services (HSS) Trust

  Number of vacant consultant posts as at 31 March 2003

  Number vacant more than three months

  Number vacant more than six months

  Number vacant more than 12 months

  Altnagelvin Group HSS Trust

  7.5

  5.0

  5.0

  2.0

  Armagh and Dungannon HSS Trust

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Belfast City Hospital HSS Trust

  11.0

  8.0

  4.0

  1.0

  Causeway HSS Trust

  3.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  Craigavon Area Hospital Group HSS Trust

  2.0

  2.0

  1.0

  1.0

  Craigavon and Banbridge Community HSS Trust

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Down Lisburn HSS Trust

  3.0

  3.0

  3.0

  1.0

  Somali Community
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions have been held with representatives of the Somali community concerning their needs and role in society; and if he will make a statement. [117691]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Home Office has not held discussions with representatives of the Somali community on this subject. Meeting the needs of this or any other group in society is a matter for local service providers.

  Speed Cameras
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many instances of criminal damage to speed cameras were reported in each of the last five years. [118560]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The requested information is not available centrally.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Ambulance Service
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he plans to take to improve morale among members of the Ambulance Service of Northern Ireland. [115963]

  Mr. Browne
  I am not aware of any specific problems concerning morale in the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service. However, I am alert to the potential impact on morale that violence against ambulance staff might have. The Ambulance Service has undertaken a wide range of initiatives to address this problem including staff training, the review of its violence to staff policy; better reporting mechanisms, public outreach work, enhanced security measures and increased local and regional liaison with PSNI. The Trust also extensively lobbies public representatives to use their influence to support and assist NIAS and works with local community groups and schools to try and raise awareness and prevent attacks from occurring.

  Consultants
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many vacant consultant posts there are in Northern Ireland; in which trusts they are; and how many have been vacant for more than(a) three months, (b) six months and (c) 12 months. [116974]

  Mr. Browne
  Information for this question can be found in the following table:
  1065W

  Number of vacant consultant posts (WTE1) in Northern Ireland by trust and duration

  Health and Social Services (HSS) Trust

  Number of vacant consultant posts as at 31 March 2003

  Number vacant more than three months

  Number vacant more than six months

  Number vacant more than 12 months

  Foyle Community HSS Trust

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  Green Park Healthcare HSS Trust

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Homefirst Community HSS Trust

  2.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  Mater Infirmorum Hospital HSS Trust

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  0.0

  Newry and Mourne HSS Trust

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  North and West Belfast HSS Trust

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Royal Group of Hospitals HSS Trust

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  South and East Belfast HSS Trust

  0.8

  0.8

  0.0

  0.0

  Sperrin Lakeland HSS Trust

  6.0

  5.0

  5.0

  5.0

  Ulster Community and Hospitals Group HSS Trust

  3.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  United Hospitals Group HSS Trust

  6.0

  6.0

  6.0

  5.0

  Total

  46.8

  34.3

  28.5

  18.5

  1 Whole time equivalent

  Cultural Diversity
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in promoting cultural diversity since the suspension of the Assembly. [118623]

  Angela Smith
  The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure in pursuing its vision of "a confident, creative, informed and prosperous society" is committed both to promoting a greater respect and understanding of the richness of our cultural and linguistic diversity and to celebrating this diversity. In progressing this objective the Department supported Diversity 21 as a means of examining cultural diversity with a view to promoting deeper understanding and to represent this diversity as a sign of strength in our society. Diversity 21 provided the means of promoting cultural diversity work already happening; identifying and delivery of new projects aimed at stimulating the imagination and exploring diversity in an open, creative and accessible way; and providing a cultural diversity grant funding scheme. In this way the Department supported a schedule of exhibitions on language, faith and history in Northern Ireland and the wider Commonwealth, to a number of organisations and community groups throughout the Province; a programme of workshops on the different drums of Northern Ireland and various projects aimed at progressing the cultural diversity agenda. In addition the Department under the Diversity 21 funding programme supported a range of community based projects.

  Since the suspension of the Assembly the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure has fulfilled its commitments within the Diversity 21 programme and funding scheme. In the interests of ensuring the optimum approach to cultural diversity within the DCAL remit, the Department has also evaluated the Diversity 21 Programme and is currently considering a policy framework which will enable it to take forward the cultural diversity agenda in a structured and comprehensive way.

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the total expenditure on advertising by the Department was in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; and what the level of planned expenditure is for (i) 2003–04 and (ii) 2004–05. [114428]
  1066W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The total expenditure on advertising by the Northern Ireland Office, including its Agencies, for the period 2001–02 to 2003–04 is set out in the table. Advertising budgets have not yet been agreed for 2004–05.

  £000

  Total expenditure on advertising

  2001–02 (Actual)

  1,223.5

  2002–03 (Actual)

  941.4

  2003–04 (Planned)

  752.7

  2004–05 (Planned)

  733

  The total expenditure on advertising by 11 departments within the Northern Ireland Administration, excluding its Agencies, for the period 2001–02 to 2003–04 is set out in the table. Advertising budgets have not yet been agreed for 2004–05.

  £ million

  Total expenditure on advertising

  2001–02 (Actual Outturn)

  3.1

  2002–03 (Provisional Outturn)

  2.6

  2003–04 (Planned)

  2.6

  The figure for 2001–02 excludes advertising expenditure of £0.9 million by the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland (IDE), a core part of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, whose activities, since 1 April 2002, have been undertaken by Invest Northern Ireland (an NDPB and thus outside the scope of the later figurework).

  GPs
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the pressures general practitioners in Northern Ireland experience in dealing with their workload. [116990]

  Mr. Browne
  I am aware of the concerns of general practitioners about increasing workloads. If accepted by the profession, the proposed new General Medical Services Contract will offer GPs the means to better control their work, for example allowing practices to opt out of providing certain services, including out-of-hours care. It will also provide for the development of GP
  1067W
  careers and promote the concept of partnership working at practice level and a range of demand management initiatives.

  International Independent Commission on Decommissioning
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary c f State for Northern Ireland how much has been paid to date to each member of the International Independent Commission on Decommissioning. [113870]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government do not hold the information in the form requested. However, copies of the audited accounts of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning have been placed in the Library. The 2002 accounts will be available following the audit which will be carried out at the end of 2003.

  Neurosurgery
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many patients from Northern Ireland have received neurosurgery outside the Province in the last five years. [116983]

  Mr. Browne
  The information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the longest time a patient awaiting neurosurgery admission, and deemed an emergency case, has waited in Northern Ireland in the last 12 months. [115957]

  Mr. Browne
  The information requested is not available.

  Oversight Commissioner
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money has been spent to date in respect of(a) secretarial support, (b) research and (c) other staff for the Oversight Commissioner on Policing. [117740]

  Jane Kennedy
  Since May 2000 until 31 May 2003 the money spent is:

  Expenses for Oversight Commissioner on Policing

  £

  Costs

  Secretarial Support

  72,636

  Research

  1,509

  Other Staff

  416,398

  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the breakdown was of the budget for(a) the PSNI conference on ethnic minorities in October 2002 and (b) the PSNI conference on young people held in March 2003; and how many people attended each event. [114147]
  1068W
  Jane Kennedy
  The PSNI conference, "New Directions; a Human Rights and Racial Equality Focus on Policing with Ethnic Minority Communities" held on 21 and 22 October 2002 was attended by approximately 230 delegates on both days.

  The PSNI conference on Young People and the Police, "Always Seen, Rarely Heard" took place on 25 and 26 March 2003 and was attended by 253 and 234 people respectively over the two days.

  The following table shows the breakdown of costs for these conferences.

  PSNI conference on young people in March 2003

  £

  Breakdown of costs

  PSNI conference on ethnic minorities in October 2002

  PSNI conference on young people in March 2003

  Conference launch

  —

  2,000

  Hire of services

  6,607

  4,277

  Professional services

  19,133

  6,462

  Conference packs

  1,771

  3,338

  Flights

  6,381

  —

  Video

  —

  17,625

  Hotel

  27,633

  18,869

HEALTH

  Accident and Emergency Services
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list seaside towns with a population in excess of 50,000 that have no accident and emergency provision for children within their boundaries. [118423]

  Mr. Lammy
  This information is not held centrally. Accident and emergency (A&E) provision, including paediatric A&E services, is planned locally to meet the needs of the local population.

  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department's policy is on the minimum throughput capacity for an NHS accident and emergency department to deal effectively with children's emergency admissions. [118424]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department expects all emergency patients, including children, to be taken in an emergency to the nearest appropriate hospital able to receive emergency admissions. Which hospital is most appropriate depends on the clinical condition of the patient. In some cases this will be the nearest hospital. In others it will be clinically more appropriate to stabilise the child and admit to a more distant hospital with specialist facilities.

  Advocacy Services
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to support the work of citizens advocacy groups, with specific reference to the delivery of the Valuing People White Paper; [118289]

  (2) what its Department's policy is on the provision of advocacy for those who have (a) learning disabilities and (b) mental health problems; [118290]
  1069W
  (3) what role his Department has given to the British Institute of Learning Disabilities with regard to the distribution of moneys for the purpose of expanding advocacy services; [118291]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the demand for advocacy services for those who have learning disabilities or mental health problems. [118292]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government attaches great importance to the development of advocacy services as one of the means that enable the views of patients to be represented.

  Our policies for improving services for people with learning disabilities, their families and carers are set out in the White Paper "Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century" (Cm 5086) published in March 2001. The importance of advocacy is a theme running throughout the White Paper: effective advocacy services can make a real difference to the lives of people with learning disabilities and their families by helping them to put forward their views and play an active part in planning and designing services.

  "Valuing People" announced the creation of two new funds, the Implementation Support Fund and the Learning Disability Development Fund, to provide central support for key aspects of the strategy. Money from the Implementation Support Fund is being used to support and develop self and citizen advocacy projects across the country. Two voluntary organisations, the British Institute of Learning Disabilities (BILD) and Values into Action (VIA) are running separate schemes to develop and fund citizen advocacy and self advocacy respectively on the Department of Health's behalf. Both organisations have steering groups to oversee the projects and to ensure fairness in the way the funds are allocated.

  £900,000 from the Implementation Support Fund was allocated to advocacy projects in 2001–02 and £ 1 million in 2002–03; £1 million is being allocated in 2003–04. A further £300,000 was allocated in 2001–02 to administer the funding schemes and support development workers to work with and strengthen existing advocacy schemes and help set up new ones: this amount increased to £400,000 in both 2002–03 and 2003–04.

  We announced in our report on learning disability, "Making Change Happen" (HC514–11), published in April 2003, that the Implementation Support Fund would continue until March 2006. The fund will support the same areas of work as at present. The learning disability task force, which has members drawn from both the self and citizen advocacy movements, will be involved in discussions about the detailed use of the Support Fund.

  Mental health policies pay equal importance to the use of advocacy. The draft Mental Health Bill, published on 25 June 2002, provides for the first time that specialist mental health advocacy must be available for all patients being treated under compulsory powers and their nominated persons. This new duty ensures that patients can have the help of specialist advocacy when it is most needed. There are also proposals in the draft Bill for safeguards, including access to advocacy,
  1070W
  for some adult patients who have a long-term incapacity to consent and who are in a hospital or nursing home receiving treatment for a serious mental disorder.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the efforts made to address age discrimination in the NHS since 2000; [118498]

  (2) how many representations he has received relating to age discrimination in the NHS in each of the last five years. [118499]

  Jacqui Smith
  Standard One of the older people's national service framework (NSF) sets out the commitment to address age discrimination in access to health and social care. Since its publication in March 2001 significant progress has been made in starting to tackle age discrimination:There is a now a wider appreciation and awareness across health and social care of age discrimination as an issue.
  National health service organisations have checked their written polices to ensure they have no age bias. Only a very small number have been found that discriminated against older people. In these cases, procedures are being reviewed.
  Our monitoring through strategic health authorities at October 2002 indicates that, 91 per cent. of areas had strategic and operational plans to address identified age discrimination.
  Councils and care trusts have received guidance to make sure everyone has fair access to services—regardless of age.
  In November last year we released a computerised information tool to enable those implementing the NSF at local level to compare their treatment rates in 10 different hospital procedures, in relation to different age groups.
  We supported the development of a practice guide published in February 2002 by the King's Fund, "Auditing Age Discrimination—a practical approach to promoting equality in health and social care".
  A reflection of this new attitude, coupled with some of the wider Departmental initiatives, can be seen in hospitals' greater action in providing surgery for older patients:
  between 2000 and 2002, for example, breast cancer surgery for patients 85 and over rose by 13 per cent. and while coronary artery by pass grafts increased by 16 per cent. for those 65 or over, while the increase was 32 per cent. Among patients 75 or over and 65 per cent. in the 85 plus age group.
  We have funded Age Concern to run eight events on age discrimination across England during the current year.

  Detailed, comprehensive information on representations of age discrimination made by organisations and individuals to the NHS are not collated centrally. The Department at a national level and local NHS organisations are continuing to work closely with older people and their representative bodies to identify individual and specific areas of concern and take action to address them.

  Asbestos
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the actions his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are taking to comply with the requirements of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002; whether he has made an estimate of the cost of compliance; and if he will make a statement. [117710]
  1071W
  Mr. Lammy
  The Department of Health, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies have implemented a programme of investigations to establish the presence, type and condition of asbestos containing materials in its buildings where the Department has an obligation to repair or maintain the building. Where asbestos containing materials have been found to be present, or have been presumed to be present, the risk posed by the asbestos has been reassessed and any additional measures required have been introduced.

  Where the Department occupies premises but has no obligation to repair or maintain them, written information and documented proof is being sought from the owner/leaseholder.

  Any additional measures required are normally included as part of ongoing maintenance but the cost of current works planned total about £1.245 million.

  Audiology
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many digital hearing aids have been issued on the NHS since they became available. [117853]

  Jacqui Smith
  A total of 83,397 digital hearing aids were fitted as part of the modernising hearing aid services (MHAS) project by the end of April 2003. We do not know the number of digital hearing aids fitted by those sites that have access to the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency contract for digital hearing aids but are not part of the MHAS project, nor would we know of any digital hearing aids bought outside of the contract, as neither of these figures is collected centrally. Any site with the necessary training and equipment in place may apply for access to the procurement contract so that they can provide digital hearing aids on the national health service.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on hearing loss in England. [117854]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Medical Research Council Institute of Hearing Research estimates that there are now approximately 7.5 million people in England who are deaf or hearing impaired. Most of these people acquire their hearing impairment. It is estimated that 55.1 per cent. of people aged over 60 are deaf or hearing impaired compared, to 6.7 per cent. of the under 60s. The Royal National Institute for Deaf People estimates that 1.8 per cent. of young adults under 30 have a hearing impairment.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with the Royal National Institute for the Deaf; and if he will make a statement. [117855]

  Jacqui Smith
  Officials of the Department of Health are working very closely with the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, who are project managing the modernisation of the hearing aid services programme.

  Cardiac Services
  Mr. Kevan Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is given to NHS trusts on prioritising young people for treatment when they have been diagnosed with cardiac abnormalities. [R][118524]
  1072W
  Jacqui Smith
  Young people diagnosed with cardiac abnormalities should be prioritised for treatment according to their medical need. This is a matter for the medical professionals involved in their care.

  The report of the paediatric and congenital cardiac services review group, which was published for consultation in November 2002, contains proposed quality standards for paediatric and congenital cardiac services. Ministers are currently considering the responses received to the consultation before determining the best way forward. A copy of the consultation report is available at www.doh.gov.uk/ childcardiac/reviewnov02.htm and in the Library.

  Cataracts
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has commissioned to indicate that the imaging of the iris would aggravate existing cataracts or accelerate their formation. [117876]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 9 June 2003]: The Department is not aware of any research that has been carried out that shows that the imaging of the iris can aggravate existing cataracts or accelerate their formation.

  Chicken (Beef Protein)
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on hospitals to which chicken adulterated with beef protein has been supplied. [116852]

  Mr. Lammy
  None of the chickens on the national contract negotiated by the NHS Purchasing and Supply was supplied by those companies identified by the Food Standards Agency as supplying products adulterated by pork or beef DNA.

  As a condition of the contract, suppliers agree to be independently audited. Quality assurance inspectors from the Meat and Livestock Commission make unannounced visits to suppliers' premises, inspect the products destined for the national health service and verify the chemical content in comparison with specifications laid out in the contract. The analysis also identifies water content and the DNA present. There have been no reports of pork or beef DNA being found in any sample.

  As an additional safeguard, if the inspectors find any implicated brand on a supplier's premises, suppliers are now required to provide evidence that the product is not going to be supplied to the national health service.

  Information about whether NHS trusts have purchased chickens from sources other than those suppliers on national contract is not available centrally.

  Civil Contingencies
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional expenditure over and above that identified prior to 1 April 2002(a) was spent in 2002–03 and (b) will be spent in 2003–04 on national and regional resilience work for (i) essential services, (ii) treatment of mass casualties and (iii) treatment of infectious disease; whether arrangements exist to release

  1073W
  expenditure during the current financial year for resilience projects under consideration for (A) essential services, (B) treatment of mass casualties and (C) treatment of infectious disease; and if he will make a statement. [113928]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 16 May 2003]: The Government's Civil Contingencies Capabilities Programme has identified broad areas of activity under which Departments group specific projects, activity and programme expenditure. The purpose is to deliver broad generic capabilities which allow the United Kingdom to respond effectively to a wide range of disruptive challenges.

  In 2002–03 the Department of Health allocated some £85 million to strengthen national and regional resilience to ensure that the national health service is prepared and equipped to meet the demands of chemical, biological, nuclear and radiological threats to the public. This figure is £69 million over and above the £16 million spent in 2001–02. Through this funding, medical countermeasures, including vaccines, antibiotics, antidotes and respiratory support equipment, and personal protective equipment are now in place in the NHS. Although it is not possible to apportion specific expenditure to each area, this funding has served to strengthen overall capability and resilience to threats to essential services, the treatment of mass casualties and the treatment of infectious disease. For 2003–04, the Department of Health has allocated £98.5 million to this on-going programme of work, which is £82.5 million over and above the 16 million spent in 2001–02.

  The capabilities that we are working to deliver have been developed to allow the Government to deal with the fullest range of scenarios. Should a specific additional urgent operational need arise, at any point of the spending cycle, action would be taken to meet it. The public expenditure framework the Government have put in place provides the flexibility to deal with unexpected pressures.

  Community Health Councils
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions his Department had with community health councils regarding redundancy notices being issued before 4 June. [118547]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department has had regular discussions with the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales and the Community Health Council (CHC) unions about redundancy matters. There have also been regular meetings between the CHC leads and CHCs to discuss issues arising out of the abolition of CHCs. In addition, the Department has worked in partnership with the unions to produce the human resources framework which will support CHC staff to seek new employment and avoid redundancies.

  Dental Health
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures have been undertaken to increase awareness of the importance of teeth brushing and reducing sugar in the diet to dental hygiene. [114702]
  1074W
  Mr. Lammy
  In England, primary care trusts are responsible for oral health promotion and currently they attach particular importance to ensuring that oral health is covered in initiatives such as Sure Start, health action zones and healthy living centres. In August 2001, to complement this work, we launched our Brushing for Life scheme, which targets families with young children in the 31 areas where dental decay is highest. There are currently 32 schemes running nationally. When carrying out developmental checks, health visitors demonstrate good tooth brushing practice and give the families a free pack containing a tube of fluoridated toothpaste, a toothbrush and a leaflet on oral hygiene.

  Dentistry
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the recommended period is after which patients should be recalled for a dental check-up for(a) people under 18 and (b) people over 18; and what proportion of the population attended such a check-up on time in (i) England, (ii) each NHS region and (iii) each strategic health authority in each of the last six years. [116946]

  Mr. Lammy
  While it is accepted that oral examinations at appropriate intervals are of value in maintaining oral health, there is little direct evidence to support a specific interval or to quantify the benefit. There is, therefore, a requirement for the practitioner to undertake a needs assessment exercise for each individual patient. Individual recall intervals result from a balanced consideration of the risks to maintaining oral health. General dental services remuneration arrangements do not normally permit payment for a recall examination where the same dentist received an examination fee in the previous five complete calendar months.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence has been asked to prepare guidance for the national health service in England and Wales, on the clinical and cost effectiveness of a dental recall examination for all patients at an interval based on the risk from oral disease.

  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the need for a new school of dentistry in the UK. [117821]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 9 June 2003]: We are undertaking the first dental work force review since 1987, in consultation with the dental profession. We hope to publish a report later this year, together with work force planning assumptions for national health service work force development confederations and the Higher Education Funding Council for England. This will include any expansion in facilities for training for dental undergraduates if considered necessary by the review.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress of the Dental Workforce Review. [118184]

  Mr. Lammy
  We plan to publish a review of the primary care dental workforce for England later this year, which will inform workforce planning assumptions of the national health service workforce development confederations and the Higher Education
  1075W
  Funding Council for England. This review is being undertaken in consultation with the dental profession. We will also ensure the review is regularly updated, to take account of our programme for the modernisation of NHS dentistry.

  Domiciliary Oxygen
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will allow on prescription conserving devices for domiciliary oxygen; [118620]

  (2) when he will announce the results of the review of domiciliary oxygen services initiated in March 2000. [118621]

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has for the provision of ambulatory oxygen to patients with lung disease; [118818]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to allow (a) conserving devices for domiciliary oxygen and (b) ambulatory oxygen to be dispensed on prescription; [118819]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the benefit to patients of using conserving devices with domiciliary oxygen. [118820]

  Mr. Lammy
  In 1999, the Department of Health asked the Royal College of Physicians to lead a multidisciplinary working party to devise new clinical guidelines for the use of domiciliary oxygen. Although the working party's terms of reference precluded making specific recommendations about alterations in service provision, a number of the guidelines had implications for the content of the existing domiciliary oxygen service and for the way in which the service is delivered. It was clear, therefore, that this vital resource—that has seen only one significant change, the introduction of oxygen concentrators, in the past 50 years—had become out of date, both in terms of the service offered to patients and its cost effectiveness. It was against this background that the then Under-Secretary of State, my noble Friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath directed that a review of the domiciliary oxygen service should take place.

  This review is now complete and we are ready to move forward to create a modernised and integrated service for the provision of domiciliary oxygen.

  At present, domiciliary oxygen is ordered for patients by general practitioners. The service consists principally of the provision of oxygen either from large cylinders supplied by community pharmacies, or delivered by way of an oxygen concentrator, installed in the patient's home by a contractor.

  The modern, integrated service that is proposed represents a considerable advance on this organisational and service model.

  The new model will transfer responsibility for ordering oxygen for long-term oxygen therapy from general practitioners to specialist consultants in hospital. This will relieve general practitioners of the bureaucratic burden of writing prescriptions, effectively on doctors. (Patients who need long-term oxygen will invariably have their needs assessed by hospital staff). The hospital consultant will decide, in discussion with the patient, what the patient's needs for oxygen are. For
  1076W
  example, many patients would benefit from having oxygen available in a form that allows then greater freedom of movement both in and outside the home than is possible with large cylinders or oxygen concentrators. General practitioners will continue to be able to prescribe oxygen for patients who need small amounts of oxygen.

  Once the hospital consultant or general practitioner has discussed and determined the patient's need for oxygen, it will be the responsibility of contractors to work closely with the patient and decide what technology, that is what type and method of oxygen supply, will best suit the patient's therapeutic need, and to provide it. These specialist contractors will be well placed to keep pace with developments in the technical aspects of service delivery, so patients will benefit from advances in technology as they are developed.

  Thus, the modernised integrated service represents a sensible division of responsibility in the provision of domiciliary oxygen services. It places clinical responsibility for assessing oxygen need with doctors, and places technical decisions on the best and most up to date method of delivery with service contractors. Over the next few months a specification for the provision of the integrated service will be drawn up. Contractors will be invited to tender against this specification and fully operational early in 2005. The current arrangements for the provision of domiciliary oxygen will continue as at present to cover this transitional period.

  Donor Cards
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to encourage the provision of donor cards in GP surgeries. [116930]

  Mr. Lammy
  General practitioners are the second highest source of applications of registration on the National Health Service Organ Donor Register and all GPs have access to supplies of the forms via the Organ Donor Line. UK Transplant is currently exploring partnerships with drug companies who can provide free distribution to surgeries through their representatives. In March 2003, all 11,000 GP surgeries in the United Kingdom were supplied with leaflets highlighting issues relevant to the Asian community. Leaflets were supplied in English with examples of versions in Urdu, Punjabi, Bengali, Gujerati and Hindi available to order.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were registered with donor cards in each of the last 10 years; and what steps the Government has taken to encourage a greater take-up. [116932]

  Mr. Lammy
  The national health service organ donor register was established in 1994. The table shows the number of people that have registered each year. People are encouraged to join the organ donor through a number of initiatives, including when they apply for a driving licence, register with a new general practitioner, apply for a new passport or, where available, complete the organ donor registration form sent out by their local authorities annually when they check the electoral register. Additionally, UK Transplant runs publicity campaigns and targets action to raise the profile of organ donation, including specific advertising and
  1077W
  information campaigns to increase organ donation from the South Asian and black African and Caribbean populations.

  (Millions)

  1994

  0.14

  1995

  2.21

  1996

  1.39

  1997

  0.92

  1998

  0.87

  1999

  1.51

  2000

  1.24

  2001

  0.74

  2002

  1.08

  Total1

  10.10

  1at end of 2002

  Pharmacies
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pharmacies in England are included in the Essential Pharmacy Scheme. [118727]

  Mr. Lammy
  For the year ending 31 March 2002, 259 pharmacies in England providing national health service pharmaceutical services received payments under the Essential Small Pharmacy Scheme.

  Free NHS Treatment
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to prevent those not ordinarily resident in the UK receiving free NHS treatment. [118342]

  Mr. Hutton
  Entitlement to free national health service hospital treatment is based on residence in the United Kingdom: anyone deemed "ordinarily resident" in the UK should not be charged for their treatment, other than statutory charges, such as those for NHS prescriptions. The National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 1989 set out the circumstances in which those not ordinarily resident should be charged for their treatment. It is for individual NHS trusts to apply the Regulations and establish whether a patient is eligible for free treatment. We will shortly be issuing revised guidance on the operation of the Regulations.

  General Practitioners
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many GPs there were(a) in England and (b) in each constituency in the last year for which figures are available. [118719]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information is not available on a constituency basis. Information on the number of all general practitioners in England, broken down by primary care trust as at 31 March 2002 has been placed in the Library.

  Hearing Aid Appointments
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the waiting time is for a hearing aid appointment at(a) the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital and (b) the Princess Royal Hospital. [117598]
  1078W
  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 10 June 2003]: Although the Department does not collect information on waiting times for hearing aid services centrally, the Royal National Institute for the Deals modernising hearing aid services project management team informs us that the out-patient waiting time in Shropshire for new patients, from general practitioner referral to having a hearing aid fitted is between 12 and 15 months. The waiting time is the same for both of the hospitals mentioned. Shropshire is currently negotiating to extend the private sector pilot, making use of high street hearing aid dispensers to increase NHS capacity, and reduce waiting times.

  International Nurse Advice Line
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many calls have been received by the International Nurse Advice Line in each month since the scheme was started. [111043]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national health service international nurses advice line received the following number of calls since the scheme began.

  Many calls are made on behalf of more than one nurse.

  Number of calls received

  July 2002

  0

  August 2002

  1

  September 2002

  33

  October 2002

  28

  November 2002

  11

  December 2002

  39

  January 2003

  50

  February 2003

  30

  March 2003

  16

  April 2003

  22

  Total

  102

  Medical Defence Organisations
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the implications for clinicians and patients of medical defence organisations making their indemnity available on a discretionary basis; and if he will make a statement. [115899]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 3 June 2003]: Professional indemnity should ensure that patients who have suffered harm receive the compensation to which they are entitled. Indemnity cover should be occurrence based, that is claims are met that arise from events when the clinician was covered but only come to light later, even if this is after the period of cover has ceased. Experience in the United Kingdom is that proper indemnity cover can be provided through membership of a defence society or a suitable insurance policy.

  Medical Technologies
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the Home Secretary about the potential of identity cards to prevent those not ordinarily resident in the UK from receiving free NHS treatment. [118344]
  1079W
  Mr. Hutton
  My right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Health has had discussions with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on a range of issues relating to the potential uses of identity cards, including as a means of confirming eligibility for free national health service treatment. N o decisions have yet been made.

  Men's Health
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has conducted in(a) the UK and (b) other EU member states, into young male suicide rates and methods of reducing the rate in the UK. [118496]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department of Health has conducted a number of pieces of research relating to the question.The national programme on forensic mental health research and development was established in April 1999 and built on the work of the research and development programme set up as part of the High Security Psychiatric Services Commissioning Board (first established in September 1996). The programme supports the evidence base for the provision of services for mentally disordered offenders by commissioning research and developing research capacity.
  Response from the forensic mental health (FMH) project on 'Aspects of Suicide among mentally disordered offenders' project.
  The National Research Register (www.update-software.com/ nrr/) has 30 on-going projects listed on suicide and just over 200 recently completed projects.
  Some European studies on suicide.
  The Department has also recently commissioned a research project that will examine coroners' records for details of around 570 cases of suicide involving hanging (the most common method of suicide for men in England), firearms or self-poisoning. The study is being undertaken on a collaborative basis by researchers at the Universities of Oxford, Bristol and Manchester. It will report by the end of 2003 and will provide evidence to support the implementation of the National Suicide Prevention Strategy for England.
  In 2002 the Department of Health published a 'National Suicide Prevention Strategy for England'. This identified young men as a key high risk of suicide group and also refers to research which is being promoted by the National Institute for Mental Health in England (NIMHE) into high risk groups such as young men.

  NHS Appointments Commission
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many appointments to the position of Chairman have been made by the NHS Appointments Commission since its inception, broken down by(a) recognised medical or nursing qualification, (b) in-service professionals from medicines, nursing and other clinical or health-related backgrounds and (c) other backgrounds, experience and qualifications. [116936]

  Mr. Lammy
  Since it was established, the National Health Service Appointments Commission has appointed 370 chairs to NHS boards. Information on the precise categories identified in the question is not available. However, 38 of those appointed as chairs have declared a medical, nursing or other background in professions allied to medicine. People who are currently employed by a health service body are statutorily disqualified from appointment as a NHS chair or non-executive director.

  NHS Direct
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive regarding the application of experience from the operation of NHS Direct in(a) reducing staff turnover, (b) adopting family friendly work routines and (c) general call handling to NHS24. [113757]

  Mr. Lammy
  NHS 24 has worked closely with NHS Direct in developing the service and is committed to continuous dialogue with the purpose of shared learning and good practice for the benefit of staff and service users.

  NHS Managers
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many managers within the NHS earned(a) between £20,000 and £40,000 per annum, (b) £41,000 to £60,000 per annum, (c) £61,000 to £80,000 per annum, (d) £81,000 to £100,000 per annum and (e) over £100,000 per annum in each year since 1997. [113253]

  Mr. Hutton
  The available figures for health authorities, National Health Service trusts, primary care trusts and special health authorities are shown in the table.

  Number

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  £40,000 to £60,000

  4,768

  5,255

  6,323

  6,076

  £60,000 to £80,000

  1,339

  1,464

  1,544

  1,026

  £80,000 to £100,000

  419

  535

  650

  421

  Over £100.000

  97

  127

  193

  259

  Total

  6,623

  7,381

  8,710

  7,782

  Notes:

  1 The accounts and summarisation forms do not distinguish between medical and non-medical staff in health authorities and special health authorities. The figures in the Table therefore include some medical staff who are not managers. The figures also include medical directors in NHS Trusts.

  2 NHS locally published accounts now give individual details of earning and names of senior staff and directors in accordance with the Greenbury Code. This level of detail is not collected centrally so comparable figures are not available for 2001–02 onwards.

  3 Figures for staff in health authorities in 2000–01 are not yet available as they are not disclosed in the accounts or summarisation schedules. Banding: Staff remuneration is not itemised in bands of less than £40,000 to £50,000

  Sources:

  Health authority audited accounts 1997–98 and 1998–9

  Health authority audited summarisation forms 1999–2000

  NHS Trust audited summarisation schedules 1997–98 to 2001–02

  Primary care trust audited summarisation schedules 2000–01 to 2001–02

  Special health authority audited accounts 1997.

  Oldchurch Hospital
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to reduce the mortality rate at Oldchurch Hospital in Romford. [113468]

  Mr. Hutton
  The responsibility for improving mortality rates at Oldchurch Hospital rests with, initially, Barking, Havering and Redbridge National Health Service Trust who are accountable to North East London Strategic Health Authority.
  1081W
  I understand that work is underway to look at the trend in mortality rates and the following has been put in place by the audit team and medical director at the trust:
  A trust-wide mortality group lead the by medical director and with the associate medical directors to review any unexpected data
  Monthly mortality review groups at speciality level to review all deaths
  Data is now available via the trust's intranet enabling clinicians to monitor their own mortality data and identify areas for audit

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the question tabled on 19 May by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, ref. 115174, on diagnostic and treatment centres. [118900]

  Mr. Hutton
  I replied to my hon. Friend's question on 10 June.

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his holding answer of 16 May 2003, when he will reply to the question, ref. 113929. [118901]

  Mr. Hutton
  I replied to my right hon. Friend on Monday 19 May 2003,Official Report, column 613–14W.

  Partnership Agreements
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he plans to conclude a partnership agreement with the trade unions representing the staff in his Department. [117456]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department of Health signed up to a Partnership Working Agreement in April 2001. This agreement was based on the national model and was signed with the following unions:

  Public and Commercial Services

  Prospect

  Association of First Division Civil Servants

  Department Trade Union side.

  The Department greatly values this development.

  Peto Institute
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many UK nationals have benefited from reduced rates when attending the Peto Institute since the payment by the UK Government to the Institute in 1991. [116335]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department of Health does not collect information regarding the Peto Institute. However, the following information has been obtained from the British embassy in Hungary. According to Article 4 of the bilateral agreement, United Kingdom residents have received a reduction in conductive education fees on the standard fees for non-Hungarians since 14 September 1998. In addition, some British students receive conductive training, which will enable them to provide conductive education in the UK.
  1082W
  For the 2000–01 academic year, 12 UK residents received conductive training and 18 received conductive education. An extra 15 students received conductive education during the 2001 summer camp. For the 2001–02 academic year, 18 UK residents received conductive education and 18 received conductive training. In addition, reduced rates have been offered to UK residents staying at either the Peto Institute's hostel or hotel.

  Prescription Charges
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the increases in prescription charges since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [119268]

  Mr. Lammy
  The increases in the prescription charges since 1997 are shown in the table.

  £

  Prescription Charge

  Cash Increase

  1997

  5.65

  0.15

  1998

  5.80

  0.15

  1999

  5.90

  0.10

  2000

  6.00

  0.10

  2001

  6.10

  0.10

  2002

  6.20

  0.10

  2003

  6.30

  0.10

  Prime Care
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many contracts and to what value have been awarded to Prime Care; how many complaints have been received about Prime Care in(a) 2002 and (b) 2003; and what evaluation he has carried out of the overnight speed of response of (i) Prime Care and (ii) NHS Direct. [114778]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 20 May 2003]: Contracts with Prime Care are let locally by general practitioners, GP co-operatives arid others. Information is not held centrally on their number value, or any related complaints.

  The quality of out-of-hours primary medical care services is now being assured through the introduction of new arrangements for accrediting providers. Under this system, only organised out-of-hours providers which meet and maintain specified quality standards will be accredited by primary care trusts (PCTs) to continue providing services. The quality standards, which include responsiveness, are those recommended by The Carson Review of out-of-hours services, which reported in 2000. Both NHS Direct and Prime Care are expected to meet these standards and their performance is for PCTs to monitor as part of the new accreditation system.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to encourage participation of disabled people in public appointments in the national health service. [118544]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Government are making every effort to encourage more disabled people to serve on national health service boards. While the overall
  1083W
  proportion on the boards of NHS trusts, primary care trusts (PCTs) and health authorities (HAs) is lower than we would wish, considerable progress has been made in recent years, with the number on boards having risen from 29 in May 1997 to 119 today.

  The NHS Appointments Commission has been set the following goals and objectives in relation to the appointment of disabled people to NHS boards, to be achieved by December 2005.

  Goals:
  Five per cent. of all those appointed to be disabled. At present, the figure is 3.4 per cent.
  Three per cent. of chairs to be disabled. At present, the figure is 2.3 per cent.

  Objectives:
  Encouragement will be given to the use of "advertorials" in publications aimed at disabled people to further publicise the opportunities available.
  The Appointments Commission will ensure that appropriate equal opportunities training is provided for those sitting on non-executive interview panels.
  The Appointments Commission will ensure that a guaranteed interview scheme is offered to disabled people meeting the minimum criteria for appointments.
  Guidance will be given to NHS trusts. HAs and PCTs on the need to make appropriate provision for any disabled board members, for example, audio loops, meeting papers in braille, use of wheel chair ramps, etc.
  Targeted advertising on NHS appointments will be included in publications aimed at disabled people.
  Advertisements for NHS appointments will contain the words: "applications will be welcomed regardless of gender, race, disability or sexual orientation."
  Records to be maintained on disabled candidates at all stages of the appointments process, identifying proportions applying and those sifted or interviewed out etc.

  This issue is currently being addressed on an interdepartmental basis.

  Radiographers
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to change the working hours of radiographers in NHS trust hospitals under the Agenda for Change programme. [118902]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Agenda for Change package, agreed for testing in early implementer sites, would mean that radiographers, who currently work 35 hours, would gradually increase to the standard 37½ working work. From the date of implementation for four years they would continue to work 35 hours per week, followed by 36 hours for the next two years and 37 hours for one year after this, before finally moving to the new standard 37½ hours in year eight.

  Rheumatoid Arthritis
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the additional risks of(a) heart attacks, (b) strokes and (c) peripheral gangrene are for people suffering from rheumatoid arthritis; [118447]

  (2) what proportion of rheumatoid arthritis patients he estimates will develop accelerated atheroma
  1084W
  formation in their arteries as a result of their rheumatoid arthritis condition; [118448]

  (3) what proportion of patients with rheumatoid arthritis he estimates would benefit from anti-TNF therapy. [118449]

  Jacqui Smith
  All patients with rheumatoid arthritis have an increased risk of developing atheroma, a pathological process that may lead to an increased incidence of coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease and peripheral blood vessel disease. The exact mechanism of atheroma formation in rheumatoid arthritis is unclear, but may be associated with the vasculitis observed in rheumatoid arthritis. Peripheral gangrene may result from atheroma in peripheral blood vessels, and sometimes from vasculitis itself. On average, life expectancy is reduced in rheumatoid arthritis by about five years and atheroma is a key contributing cause.

  In March 2002, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence recommended the use of Etanercept and Infliximab for rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatoid arthritis affects all ages and ethnic groups and up to 1 per cent. of the population may be affected by it. We expect that about 15,000 people will benefit from anti-TNF therapy.

  Streptococcal Infections
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of best practice in the treatment of Group B Streptococcal infections in(a) the USA and (b) the EU; and if he will make a statement. [116918]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department of Health has not done any assessment of best practice in the treatment of this disease in the United States of America or the European Union.

  This is a matter of clinical practice, which we know has been receiving much research attention. We expect that obstetric units will have in place a standard form of practice based on the various guidance which currently exists while awaiting consideration of the guidelines, currently being produced by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which we expect will be published in December 2003. These guidelines will take account of all published work in this area.

  Transplant Organs
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many organs on the Organ Register were available for(a) liver transplants and (b) heart and lung transplants in each of the last five years. [116928]

  Mr. Lammy
  Information on the number of livers and cardiothoracic (heart/lung) organs donated for transplant in the United Kingdom between 1998 and 2002 are shown in the table.

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Total

  Livers

  653

  650

  663

  661

  687

  3,314

  Hearts

  287

  251

  211

  201

  160

  1,110

  Lungs

  278

  272

  233

  247

  220

  1,250

  Total

  1.218

  1,173

  1,107

  1,109

  1,067

  5,674

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Use of Firearms
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth)
  The statistics for April 2001 to March 2002 show that the number of police operations in which firearms were issued was 13,991. The number of occasions on which firearms were discharged by police was 11.

  Armed response vehicles were deployed on 11,572 occasions and there were 5,776 authorised firearms officers in England and Wales.

  Full details are set out in the tables below:

  Number of Operations in which Firearms were authorised

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Total

  10,928

  10,915

  11,109

  13,991

  Avon & Somerset

  88

  90

  65

  195

  Bedfordshire

  260

  190

  294

  237

  Cambridgeshire

  43

  75

  71

  114

  Cheshire

  299

  386

  545

  419

  Cleveland

  35

  76

  28

  37

  City of London

  147

  125

  3

  40

  Cumbria

  52

  24

  30

  71

  Derbyshire

  176

  178

  167

  275

  Devon & Cornwall

  61

  65

  151

  101

  Dorset

  69

  79

  174

  184

  Durham

  114

  114

  40

  89

  Essex

  590

  497

  435

  323

  Gloucestershire

  52

  52

  48

  165

  Gtr Manchester

  160

  224

  357

  580

  Hampshire

  129

  103

  114

  198

  Hertfordshire

  75

  73

  86

  112

  Humberside

  317

  193

  158

  297

  Kent

  92

  85

  83

  115

  Lancashire

  616

  267

  242

  232

  Leicestershire

  109

  222

  217

  300

  Lincolnshire

  57

  155

  336

  477

  Merseyside

  484

  489

  825

  1,020

  Metropolitan

  2,742

  2,862

  1,862

  2,447

  Norfolk

  185

  239

  226

  175

  Northamptonshire

  51

  57

  58

  43

  Northumbria

  683

  465

  708

  1,440

  North Yorkshire

  69

  61

  72

  92

  Nottinghamshire

  266

  255

  233

  384

  South Yorkshire

  135

  237

  127

  258

  Staffordshire

  209

  174

  203

  232

  Suffolk

  174

  165

  176

  163

  Surrey

  60

  143

  221

  245

  Sussex

  123

  185

  353

  248

  Thames Valley

  158

  110

  153

  179

  Warwickshire

  291

  194

  233

  130

  West Mercia

  130

  110

  36

  117

  West Midlands

  305

  362

  485

  822

  West Yorkshire

  662

  813

  822

  757

  Wiltshire

  24

  19

  66

  45

  Dyfed Powys

  38

  37

  18

  28

  Gwent

  64

  39

  30

  20

  North Wales

  386

  371

  195

  302

  South Wales

  148

  255

  363

  283

  56WS

  Number of Authorised Firearms Officers (AFOs)

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Total

  6,308

  6,262

  6,064

  5,776

  Avon & Somerset

  153

  150

  135

  116

  Bedfordshire

  50

  46

  45

  48

  Cambridgeshire

  80

  77

  73

  56

  Cheshire

  70

  75

  74

  81

  Cleveland

  78

  80

  75

  85

  City of London

  55

  73

  74

  73

  Cumbria

  98

  98

  94

  92

  Derbyshire

  87

  77

  81

  80

  Devon & Cornwall

  82

  119

  100

  108

  Dorset

  72

  66

  67

  57

  Durham

  96

  101

  101

  86

  Essex

  235

  228

  195

  180

  Gloucestershire

  79

  77

  72

  71

  Gtr Manchester

  217

  218

  240

  219

  Hampshire

  110

  111

  100

  87

  Hertfordshire

  43

  52

  44

  46

  Humberside

  102

  97

  102

  96

  Kent

  130

  136

  136

  113

  Lancashire

  132

  143

  132

  138

  Leicestershire

  90

  90

  85

  69

  Lincolnshire

  75

  78

  80

  91

  Merseyside

  121

  96

  103

  78

  Metropolitan

  1,951

  1,977

  1,940

  1,805

  Norfolk

  109

  110

  114

  104

  Northamptonshire

  92

  75

  77

  51

  Northumbria

  123

  114

  109

  125

  North Yorkshire

  83

  59

  66

  66

  Nottinghamshire

  120

  116

  137

  136

  South Yorkshire

  90

  100

  98

  92

  Staffordshire

  92

  81

  67

  71

  Suffolk

  101

  98

  90

  90

  Surrey

  69

  71

  72

  62

  Sussex

  156

  131

  118

  120

  Thames Valley

  179

  187

  185

  156

  Warwickshire

  44

  54

  45

  50

  West Mercia

  139

  129

  130

  125

  West Midlands

  92

  93

  83

  111

  West Yorkshire

  128

  110

  117

  116

  Wiltshire

  88

  89

  71

  71

  Dyfed Powys

  67

  65

  61

  77

  Gwent

  64

  68

  66

  57

  North Wales

  97

  92

  67

  83

  South Wales

  169

  155

  143

  138

  Number of Operations involving Armed Response Vehicles (ARVs)

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Total

  7,791

  8,276

  8,179

  11,574

  Avon & Somerset

  83

  78

  56

  173

  Bedfordshire

  240

  172

  253

  172

  Cambridgeshire

  27

  54

  36

  43

  Cheshire

  247

  330

  441

  523

  Cleveland

  29

  25

  16

  13

  City of London

  32

  24

  30

  39

  Cumbria

  38

  21

  27

  53

  Derbyshire

  153

  167

  152

  253

  Devon & Cornwall

  43

  52

  121

  76

  Dorset

  66

  69

  155

  182

  Durham

  84

  67

  31

  57

  Essex

  285

  244

  206

  165

  Gloucestershire

  49

  44

  39

  140

  Gtr Manchester

  43

  173

  302

  528

  Hampshire

  114

  90

  84

  116

  Hertfordshire

  26

  44

  65

  81

  Humberside

  277

  181

  136

  273

  Kent

  74

  58

  64

  89

  Lancashire

  596

  250

  177

  192

  Leicestershire

  109

  144

  195

  292

  Lincolnshire

  42

  141

  324

  470

  Merseyside

  396

  466

  75

  974

  Metropolitan

  1,573

  1,812

  1,380

  1,667

  Norfolk

  167

  210

  192

  157

  Northamptonshire

  32

  21

  35

  25

  Northumbria

  503

  397

  655

  1349

  North Yorkshire

  30

  40

  54

  60

  Nottinghamshire

  246

  232

  207

  333

  South Yorkshire

  115

  214

  103

  221

  Staffordshire

  185

  131

  136

  208

  57WS

  Number of Operations involving Armed Response Vehicles (ARVs)

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Suffolk

  104

  101

  103

  116

  Surrey

  46

  110

  192

  225

  Sussex

  0*

  172

  245

  189

  Thames Valley

  139

  108

  108

  174

  Warwickshire

  220

  158

  194

  104

  West Mercia

  99

  98

  26

  100

  West Midlands

  129

  138

  243

  563

  West Yorkshire

  630

  787

  785

  609

  Wiltshire

  17

  15

  48

  43

  Dyfed Powys

  30

  37

  18

  28

  Gwent

  39

  27

  17

  16

  North Wales

  298

  354

  155

  265

  South Wales

  136

  220

  298

  218

  * these forces have changed the counting method for incidents to which ARVs are deployed.

DEFENCE

  Missile Defence
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)
  In a written statement on 5 February 2003,Official Report, columns 11–12WS. I informed the House that the Government had agreed to a US request to upgrade the early warning radar at RAF Fylingdales as part of the US missile defence programme. Since then, we have been engaged in negotiating agreements with the US intended further to develop bilateral cooperation on aspects of the US missile defence programme. The United States Secretary of Defense and I have today signed a Framework Memorandum of Understanding on missile defence that facilitates bilateral information exchanges on missile defence matters, establishes a top-level management structure to oversee cooperative work, and prepares the way for fair opportunities to be given to UK industry to participate in the US programme. It also contains general provisions for security, personnel and other administrative matters. Further MOUs are being negotiated covering the detailed arrangements for the upgrade of the Fylingdales radar, and setting up specific UK/US technical cooperative programmes. The details of these bilateral arrangements are confidential between the respective Governments at this stage.

  None of these agreements commits the UK Government to the acquisition or deployment of a missile defence system. But the Framework MOU is an important step forward that will enable us to improve our understanding of the capabilities of the US system, in order to inform any future decisions on missile defence for the UK or for Europe as a whole.

  British Forces Post Office Agency
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  The Chief Executive of the British Forces Post Office Agency has been set the following Key Targets for 2003–04:

  KEY TARGET 1:
  To meet 95 per cent. of the Customers' requirements as negotiated and agreed in Customer Supplier Agreements for the Transit of Defence Postal Service (DPS) traffic from BFPO to the Theatre of Operations (TOO), Front Line Commands (FLCs) or on board ship.
  58WS
  KEY TARGET 2:
  To meet 95 per cent. of the Customers' requirements as negotiated and agreed in Customer Supplier Agreements for the Transit of Defence Mail Service (DMS) traffic from BFPO to customers of Defence Mail Centres (DMCs).

  KEY TARGET 3:
  To meet 97.5 per cent. of the Customers' requirements as negotiated and agreed in Customer Supplier Agreements for the Transit of Defence Courier Service (DCS) traffic from BFPO to the customers/TOO.

  KEY TARGET 4:
  To achieve an overall 3 per cent. increase in efficiency.

  Defence Storage and Distribution Agency
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  The Chief Executive of the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency has been set the following Key Targets for 2003–04:

  KEY TARGET 1:
  To meet the Customers' requirements as negotiated and agreed in Customer Supplier Agreements. (CSAs)

  KEY TARGET 1a:
  For explosive materiel: to supply 95 per cent. of available maintained munitions within demand timescales.

  KEY TARGET 1b:
  95 per cent. of all issues of non-explosive materiel to consumers to meet that element of the Supply Chain Pipeline Time (SCPT) for which DSDA has a responsibility.

  Within the 95 per cent. target, for non-explosive materiel, the following subsidiary targets have been set in CSAs:
  99 per cent. of issues to meet specified SCPT at Standard Priority Codes 01, 02 and 05;
  98 per cent. of issues to meet specified SCPT at Standard Priority Code 06;
  97 per cent. of issues to meet specified SCPT at Standard Priority Codes 03 and 07;
  95 per cent. of issues to meet specified SCPT at Standard Priority Codes 04 and 08.

  KEY TARGET 1C:
  98 per cent. of all receipts that conform to the specifications laid down in the contract and/or materiel regulations to be processed within time limits agreed with each individual customer.

  KEY TARGET 2:
  To achieve an average 5 per cent. reduction in the unit cost of output.

  KEY TARGET 3:
  The value of inventory written off as a result of DSDA's actions to be less than the levels agreed within each Customer Supplier Agreement.

  KEY TARGET 3a:
  The value of explosive materiel written off as a result of DSDA's action to be less than the value of materiel written off during financial year 2002–03.

  KEY TARGET 3b:
  The value of non-explosive materiel written off as a result of DSDA's action to be less than levels agreed within each specific Customer Supplier Agreement.

  Defence Transport and Movements Agency
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  The Chief Executive of the Defence Transport and Movements Agency has been set the following Key Targets for 2003–04:

  KEY TARGET 1:
  To meet the Customers' requirements as negotiated and agreed in CSAs to deliver:

  (a) 97 per cent. or more of Agency transactions and services provided under call-off contracts to be within agreed Time, Quantity, Quality and Cost (TQQC) criteria.

  (b) At least 92 per cent. of transactions against each contract to be within agreed TQQC criteria.

  KEY TARGET 2:
  To reduce the average unit cost of output by 2 per cent. in real terms.

  KEY TARGET 3:
  To achieve at least a "satisfactory" rating in the provision of operational transport and movements support.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Telecommunications Council
  The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms)
  The Deputy UK Permanent Representative to the European Union, Anne Lambert, attended the Council on 5 June on my behalf.

  The Council approved a General Agreement on the structure and tasks of a Regulation establishing a new European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA). The Government supports this initiative but abstained from supporting the General Agreement on the grounds that the legal base proposed—Article 95—is inappropriate for this body.
  60WS
  Council Conclusions on the World Summit on the Information Society, being held in Geneva in December, were agreed without substantial debate.

  Gender Equality
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  I am pleased to announce today the publication of the report, Delivering on Gender Equality: Supporting the PSA Objective on Gender Equality 2003–06, which sets out cross-government action to tackle gender inequality and includes a set of targets which will be the basis of measuring my Department's PSA objective on gender equality.

  I have arranged for copies of the response document to be placed in the Library of the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Industrial Research and Technology Unit
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson)
  The Industrial Research and Technology Unit's 2001–02 Annual Report and Accounts were deposited in the Libraries of both Houses today.

  Local Enterprise Development Unit
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson)
  The Local Enterprise Development Unit's 2001–02 Annual Report and Accounts were deposited in the Libraries of both Houses today.

  Industrial Development Board
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson)
  The Industrial Development Board's 2001–02 Annual Report and Accounts were deposited in the Libraries of both Houses today.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.

Water Bill [H.L.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may, with the leave of the House, clarify a rather unusual position that we have entered into on one particular aspect of the Bill. It relates to the issue of fluoridation.
There has been some discussion as to whether the matter should be included in the Bill. I can announce today that it is the Government's intention to bring forward in this House an amendment relating to fluoridation. We shall seek to have the Bill recommitted for the sole purpose of considering the proposed amendment. It is provisionally proposed that that business would be tabled for 9th July, and that the Report of that re-commitment, and Third Reading, would also be taken on the same day—all of that business being in the Chamber. The amendment will be fairly straightforward. I hope that the House will agree that, in the circumstances, since the amendment does not have a bearing on any other part of the Bill, that is the best way to proceed. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Whitty.)
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I should like to record my thanks to the Minister. Fluoridation is a highly controversial issue, whether one is in favour of it or against it. This decision has given the House an opportunity to have a full debate on a matter on which many noble Lords will want to express their view. I am grateful to the Minister and to the Government for agreeing to take the amendment on the Floor of the House and not in Grand Committee. It is only appropriate that that is where it should be taken.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Report received.
Baroness Byfordmoved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
"DUTY TO CONSERVE WATER RESOURCES
The Secretary of State shall have a duty to devise and implement measures to ensure that all entities and persons who use water do so without wasting it."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is a re-worded version of our Amendment No. 3 which was debated at length in Committee. It reflects a number of contributions made in that debate.
344
We believe that it is essential to ensure that people have a duty to conserve water. At various stages of the Bill we have referred to efficiency and conservation. Both are important, but they are separate issues.
When the amendment was originally proposed, it was generally welcomed: however, there was a clear inference that it could be improved if we looked at it again—so that is what we have done. In Committee, the Minister indicated concern that a general duty laid on the Secretary of State would confuse the powers and duties already given to the water companies, Ofwat and the Environment Agency. I disagree.
We considered this last point carefully, and concluded that it is a fragile argument. Nonetheless, by expanding the range of the duty laid on the Secretary of State to include devising and implementing measures, we feel that we have overcome the objection. Moreover, the amendment as now worded makes it clear that all users of water are affected, be they private individuals, companies, or public bodies.
During debate on the matter there has been more than one comparison with other entities. I recall in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, referring (at cols. GC65 -GC66 of the Official Report of 27th March 2003) to sewage treatment, the integrated pollution prevention and control regime as it affects factories and the nuclear power industry. I feel that the water industry as it is placed today is little different from those.
The effects of climate change are a matter for informed comment and serious conjecture. In the past two to three weeks, at least one "expert" has been given air time on Radio 4 to dispute that what is happening now is caused by man's actions or has not happened in the past.
The Water Bill has to contain provisions to meet what may or may not be a rapidly worsening situation. We believe that conservation should be a watchword for life in the West in the 21st century. A month or so ago, "Thought for the Day" revealed that people in this country cast more light on their back garden decking than was used to power the Eddystone lighthouse.
I do not have the figures, but I am sure that the amount of water used to wash cars must have increased out of sight compared with the previous century, when cars had just come into being. The national preoccupation with regular baths and showers may be highly praiseworthy, but it does not lead to a frame of mind where water conservation is paramount. The proliferation of nurseries and the sale of plants and seeds in a wide range of shops makes it fairly certain that more and more water is going to garden use.
Industry and agriculture have put in place many measures to conserve water. While they have been thus occupied, other users—particularly domestic customers—have been merrily exercising our "right",

345
as we consider it, to a growing if indeterminate share of a national resource which most regard as unending.
The Daily Telegraph gardening supplement of 17th May produced a league table of English counties ranked according to their horticultural worth. It was compiled from a number of essential elements, one of which was rainfall. Cumbria scored 10 out of 10; Cornwall 9; Lancashire 8; Devon 7; and Somerset 6. However, all the remaining 33 counties were awarded 5 or fewer, and Essex, Norfolk, Cambridgeshire, Lincolnshire, Suffolk, Warwickshire, Bedfordshire, Northamptonshire and Nottinghamshire all rated merely a single point.
The Government have stated their intention to encourage the building of some 400,000 new homes. They are also consulting on massive airport construction. They have pointed to new hospitals and prisons, all of which will use vast quantities of water. The Secretary of State must have a duty to ensure that every person in every role and position that they occupy has a duty to conserve water. What better place to express that duty than at the start of this important Water Bill 2003? I beg to move.
11.15 a.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches support the amendment. We believe that it is right to put this commitment at the front of the Water Bill. The Water Efficiency Awards 2003, mentioned last week in your Lordships' House, showed again the enormous effect that small efforts on the part of individuals and creative innovation on the part of industry can have.
In Committee, we discussed such measures as the labelling of water appliances, and these Benches brought forward an amendment on the subject. The change of lifestyle referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, is a long-term issue, but it is correct to encourage the work to start now, with the Secretary of State having a duty to ensure that it continues and results in water being conserved in the longer term. Later in the Bill, our Amendment No. 155, addresses the duty of other government departments to do their bit for water conservation. However, it is appropriate to have this new clause as the starting point for the Bill.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Byford in this amendment. It is important that the matter should be stated clearly before we get into the nitty gritty of the Bill. I wish to flag up another issue to which I shall return on Report: we do not value water in anything like the way we should. For example, we think that water comes out of the sky, is in the rivers and the sea, and should be free. Perhaps there is a charge because it must be treated and flow through pipes, but we do not realise what a scarce resource it is. We must use every instrument at our disposal to try to ensure that we do not waste water. It is not just for the chattering classes to think about resources, annual rainfall and methods of getting water through the
346
system to homes, offices and factories. Rather, we should impress on everyone that water is a valuable commodity.
The current method of charging for water, another issue I shall raise, means that most people assume that water charges are another tax rather like council tax. Generally speaking, water charges are based on the value of the property. There is therefore no incentive to use more, or worse still, to use less—no incentive at all. Unless all governments grasp the nettle, do what is done in every other major developed country and bring home the fact that water is a very scarce resource which must be paid for according to use, we shall get nowhere.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we discussed similar amendments in Committee when I said that I sympathised with the objective and would consider whether an amendment was necessary. I endorse the overall sentiments expressed so far. However, the new clause is widely drafted and refers to a duty to develop.
"and implement measures to ensure that all entities and persons who use water do so without wasting it."
That means everyone throughout the water cycle. It is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to ensure that none of us wastes water. It would be difficult to provide that general duty on the Secretary of State without giving the means to implement it, and I suspect that some of the means would be subject to civil liberty considerations. Public authorities are a different issue, and later on we shall consider an amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that partly relates to that. Measures, are already in place, or are provided for elsewhere in the Bill, to further water conservation in that respect. For example, Clause 76 introduces a new duty on water undertakers to further water conservation which will expand on their existing duties to maintain an efficient water supply system and to promote the efficient use of water by their consumers.
I understand that the Water Industry Act 1991 already has various relevant provisions, including sanctions against the waste, misuse and undue consumption of the water supplied by undertakers. The Water Supply (Water Fittings) Regulations 1999 also place controls on certain water fittings and appliances for that purpose.
We considered carefully in Committee amendments to impose a duty on the Environment Agency to ensure that all abstractors use water efficiently. As a consequence, we are bringing forward a government amendment which will extend Section 6 of the Environment Act 1995 to make it clear that the agency has a duty to secure the efficient use of water resources. Therefore, existing legislation and this Bill already provide sufficient requirements with regard to the role of public agencies. This amendment goes somewhat

347
further without necessarily supplying the means to achieve it. I believe that it goes a step too far, albeit that I agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, in relation to the general approach to water in this country and in other developed countries.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am disappointed by the Minister's response. Can he tell the House how much water is used by individuals compared with public bodies and businesses? I suspect that the bulk of water is used by individuals. If that is so, that adds huge weight to my amendment. If the Minister is saying that my amendment is not worded correctly, I have two options left to me: to divide the House, which I am not frightened to do, or to ask the Minister whether he would return with a simple amendment at Third Reading that will reflect the desire of the House to put a duty on individuals to conserve water, in which case I would not divide the House. I am left with that dilemma as I am not satisfied with the Minister's response. Does he wish to come back on that point before I decide what to do?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps I should remind the House that, at Report stage, questions to the Minister must be raised while he is on his feet. I am sure that my noble friend will write to the noble Baroness on the point that she raises.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful for that response. I should have jumped in and asked that question of the Minister before he sat down. I am not satisfied so I shall test the opinion of the House.
11.22 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall he agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 89; Not-Contents, 76.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Elles, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Elton, L.

Blaker, L.

Emerton, B.

Blatch, B.

Falkland, V.

Bowness, L.

Flather, B.

Buscombe, B.

Fookes, B.

Byford, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Geddes, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Glentoran, L.

Cockfield, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Hanningfield, L.

Craigavon, V.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Crathorne, L.

Henley, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Higgins, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Hooson, L.

Denham, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Dholakia, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Jopling, L.

Dundee, E.

Knight of Collingtree, B

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Lang of Monkton, L.

348

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Lyell, L.

Rogan, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Roper, L.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Sandwich, E.

McNally, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Maddock, B.

Selborne, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Sharpies, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Moynihan, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Noakes,B.

Strange, B.

Northover, B.

Strathclyde, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Sutherland of Houndwood, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Tordoff, L.

Palmer, L.

Ullswater, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Vivian, L.

Peel, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Walpole, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Weatherill, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Wigoder, L.

Rees, L.

Wilcox, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Allen by of Megiddo, V.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Alli, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Andrews, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ash ton of Upholland, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bach, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jones, L.

Borrie, L.

Judd, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Brookman, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Burlison, L.

Carter, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Christopher, L.

Marsh, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Morgan, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Nicol, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Orme, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Crawley, B.

Pendry, L.

David, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Sawyer, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Sewel, L.

Dixon, L.

Sheldon, L.

Dubs, L.

Simon, V.

Elder, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Thornton, B.

Filkin, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Fitt, L.

Whitaker, B.

Golding, B.

Whitty, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Hardy of Wath, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Harrison, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
11.32 a.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domermoved Amendment No. 2:
Before Clause I, insert the following new clause—
"PROTECTION OF INLAND SURFACE WATERS, TRANSITIONAL WATERS, COASTAL WATERS AND GROUNDWATER

(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations ensure the timely establishment of a working framework that furthers the establishment of practices required by Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (hereafter referred to as the "Water Framework Directive").

(2) The regulations under subsection ( 1 ) shall in particular—

(a) prevent further deterioration of and protect and enhance the status of the aquatic ecosystems and, with regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly depending on the aquatic ecosystems;

(b) promote sustainable water use based on a long term protection of available water resources;

(c) enhance the protection and improvement of the aquatic environment through, inter alia, specific measures and targets for the progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and losses of the priority hazardous substances;

(d) ensure that for surface water the highest ecological and chemical status possible is achieved, given impacts that could not reasonably be avoided due to the nature of human activity or pollution;

(e) for groundwater, ensure the least possible changes to good groundwater status, given impacts that could not reasonably be avoided due to the nature of human activity or pollution;

(f) contribute to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts, in particular by measures to be developed as appropriate to each river basin according to policies developed by each river basin management committee (as defined in section 64).

(3) The Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales, as appropriate, shall set targets for the achievement of the measures set out in subsection (2), the first set of targets to be introduced in December 2004, to be reviewed every six years thereafter."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment introduces the Water Framework Directive principles on to the face of the Bill. Unless the Government accept something along these lines, in 2003 we shall have a piece of legislation containing over 200 pages, and in this House alone we shall have spent 10 days on it, that will not even once mention the Water Framework Directive which represents the biggest positive change in our approach to water. The Water Framework Directive offers major opportunities, as the Environment Agency said,
"to improve the whole water environment and promote the sustainable use of water for the benefit of people and wildlife".
The aims of the directive are something to which we subscribe fully. It will realign the management of water in the widest sense and its proper implementation will bring tremendous environmental and social benefits. But it will also bring huge changes in the way in which farmers manage their land, industry manages its processes, planning authorities manage the demands of development and communities in general manage their activities.
Implemented properly, it will bring cost benefits of the kind explained in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and it will be an economic good. It will move the status of all kinds of water bodies—rivers,
350
lakes, estuaries—from unknown or dubious quality in biological terms to excellent. It will be a great force for environmental good.
I believe that if it is implemented piecemeal, without clear targets and under resourced, it will not bring those benefits and those on the sharp end of implementation—industry, farmers and so on—instead of being part of the process of planning for the changes, will just be the subject of enforcement penalties and bad feeling. The framework directive has to be transposed into national law by 22nd December this year, a matter of weeks from when this Bill is expected by the Government to receive Royal Assent.
The first river basin management plans must be in place by 2009. That might seem a long way away, but six years is a short timescale to define, with public agreement, what methods of working there should be and to what boundaries and who needs to do what to their policies. One need only look at how long the well-understood process of local plans takes. This will be a whole new way of working.
In Committee, the Minister said:
"We have a perfectly adequate way of transposing that—as we normally do".—[Official Report, 27/3/03; col. GC46.]
He went on to say that we did not need to transpose matters by primarily legislation; that we almost always transpose them by secondary legislation.
The Waste and Emissions Trading Bill, which passed through your Lordships' House earlier this year, is a very good example of primary legislation transposing a directive and doing some other things. So we can have mixed legislation of that kind as the Government have just passed some through the House. That objection to my amendment does not stand.
However, I took great account of what the Minister went on to say in Committee. She said that my amendment was not satisfactory in attempting to transpose the Water Framework Directive directly and that, as a purpose clause, it was not useful. My amendment now puts the Water Framework Directive on the face of the Bill. It simply lays out some main principles on which it asks the Secretary of State to set some targets and then to monitor progress every six years.
I recognise that much more needs to be done to the transposition. I refer noble Lords to the Select Committee's report on the Water Framework Directive. It said that there was a palpable lack of urgency, and perhaps even a sense of complacency. The Government conveniently published their response to the Select Committee's report yesterday. Noble Lords will see that that response is not strong enough to allow us to think that this amendment does not need to be seriously considered.
Perhaps the Minister feels that good progress has been made since the Select Committee's report, but the amendment invites the Government to ensure that progress really is made and monitored. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, we face a fortunate coincidence and then an unfortunate lack of action.

351
The fortunate coincidence is that, almost uniquely in my experience, we have a European directive before us for implementation, as the noble Baroness said, by 22nd December of this year, at the same time as we are considering primary legislation in the same field and, in some ways and to some degree, with the same intentions as the directive.
Of course, it is customary for convenience—because this kind of coincidence does not normally occur—to deal with the consequences of European directives through secondary legislation. That is not the proper precedent that we should be following. I have always held the view that the proper way to deal with these matters is through primary legislation: it has a better parliamentary scrutiny; we are more sure of what we are doing; and I should like to think that the ability to look at the consequences of European legislation through the primary legislative process is vastly superior to the secondary legislative process.
We use the secondary legislative process simply as a matter of convenience because usually there is not room in the primary legislative programme. Governments arrange that programme and that is how the issue has been treated in the past. We have this coincidence and, from my point of view, we are dealing with the matter in the less beneficial way. I support the amendment on that basis. We should be doing much more than we are to incorporate this European directive into primary legislation. When push becomes shove—and if we have to do something about this and the Government are not going to concede—we may have to think about which Lobby to go through, but I do not think that it will take much thought.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I support the amendment. I have always had difficulty getting my mind around the complicated inter-relationships between primary and secondary legislation, and European directives and primary legislation. This is no exception. In Committee, I spoke extensively about my own experiences on the River Ure in North Yorkshire where we have been attempting to put together a river basin management plan through the good offices of the Environment Agency. For several reasons, we have failed to achieve that. On reading the amendment, I see that many of its objectives are ones to which we tried to adhere in North Yorkshire and failed. For that very simple reason, I support the amendment.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the issue of whether anything is transposed to primary legislation or secondary legislation frequently arises. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Earl might always have held a different view, but, by and large, successive governments and Parliaments since 1972, regardless of the then government's view of the EU in general, have abided by the use of secondary legislation, except in very particular circumstances.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, says, it is possible to have mixed transposition, but only where the two issues are complementary. This Bill deals with issues different from those covered by the Water Framework Directive. That argument would be
352
stronger had the Government not done anything about the transposition, as she and the noble Lord imply. The Select Committee to which the noble Baroness refers did not say that; nor did it say that we should use primary legislation. The committee observed that the important point was the effectiveness of the transposition of the directive into national law, not the means by which it was achieved.
We have already started consultation on the transposition of the directive, which raises several issues not covered by the Bill, some of which have not been discussed, despite the wide-ranging debate on the Bill in Grand Committee.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I have been waiting to hear his response on some issues. Is the Minister saying that, because the Water Framework Directive is EU legislation, by the process of this House it cannot appear on the face of the Bill in primary legislation? Why did the Government not introduce the Bill after the transposition of the directive? That would be much more logical.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, before the Minister has a chance to reply, I wish to make some points. First, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for telling us about the Government's response to the Water Framework Directive. I am afraid that I did not know about it until I heard her make the point in the House. Having gone straight to the Printed Paper Office to get the document, I quickly glanced through it. Recommendation 21 of the Select Committee asks about primary legislation. The Government respond:
"The Government believes that secondary legislation is a suitable and well established method for implementing EC legislation".
But the Select Committee's recommendation is very strong:
"But until the administrative arrangements which will enable the Environment Agency to function as the competent authority have been properly explored, Defra cannot be certain that primary legislation is not required".
We are now caught between two problems. The amendment, which we debated in Grand Committee, will probably be chucked out again by the Government. But these words add a good deal of merit to the arguments presented by the noble Baroness, both in Grand Committee and today.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, at the risk of being criticised once more for being a stickler for the rules, when the Minister is replying on Report it is possible to intervene only with a question to the Minister. With great respect, that was a statement, not a question. It is very difficult for me, because as Whips we are aware that there is criticism across the House on all sides that Committee stage procedure is creeping into Report stage. I am doing my best. I am conscious that there are those who will criticise me from both sides.
11.45 a.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, to return to the central issue, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, it is not an absolute that one cannot transpose through primary legislation. But it is normal for us to transpose through secondary legislation unless we are dealing with a completely congruent set of primary legislation. The Bill is not primarily about the same areas that the Water Framework Directive deals with. It is about the governance, competition, consumer organisations and structure of the water industry. It is not about the quality of water supply in the same way; it is about regulation and the various powers of regulation. There is an overlap but not congruence.
There would be stronger arguments for extending the scope of the Bill to include the whole Water Framework Directive if we had been dilatory in consulting and starting the transposition process. We have not. We have already had two stages of consultation. There will be a third one in the autumn, and we intend to complete the transposition by the end of the year. Therefore, it is not a valid argument to say that the Government are not getting on with transposition. We are, and, in so doing, we are taking into account the responses to the various consultations. Simply to bang the provisions into a Bill that deals largely with related but not congruent matters would not be a sensible procedure for the House. I therefore ask the noble Baroness not to proceed with the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Having re-read my amendment in the light of his words, I believe that it introduces the idea that there must be timely establishment of the working framework. All it asks the Secretary of State to do is to ensure that the transposition is timely. It is hard to see why the Bill is the wrong place for it when it introduces some primary legislation—on abstraction and so on—that is necessary because of the directive. As the Minister reminded us in Committee, it was necessary because the directive would require it.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, for pointing out the Government's response to recommendation 21 of the Select Committee report. I, too, had underlined that paragraph, in particular, and the fact that the Government should publish a legislative impact study on the requirements of the directive.
Often, good European legislation is unfortunately turned into bad national practice because it is too late or under-resourced. It is time to ensure that that cannot be the case with something as important as the Water Framework Directive. For that reason, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
11.48 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 94; Not-Contents, 89.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

MacLaurin of Knebworth. L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

McNally, L.

Astor, V.

Maddock, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Marlesford, L.

Biffen, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Blaker, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Blatch, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B [Teller]

Bowness, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Buscombe, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Byford, B.

Moynihan, L.

Caithness, E.

Noakes, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Northover, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Craigavon, V

Palmer, L.

Crathorne T

Patten, L.

Cuckney, L.

Peel, E.

Cumberlege, B

Perry of Walton, L.

Denham. L

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dholaki, L

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Redesdale, L.

Dundee, E.

Rennard, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Elles, D.

Elliott of Morpeth, L

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Rogan, L.

Elton, L.

Roper, L.

Falkland, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Flather, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Fookes, B.

Seccombe, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Selborne, E.

Geddes, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Glentoran, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Strange, B.

Henley, L.

Sutherland of Houndwood, L.

Higgins, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hooson, L.

Tordoff, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Trumpington, B.

Kimball, L.

Vivian, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Liverpool, E.

Walmsley, B.

Livsey of Talgarth, L. [Teller]

Walpole, L.

Luke, L.

Wigoder, L.

Lyell, L.

Wilcox, B.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Alli, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Andrews, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Crawley, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

David, B.

Blackstone, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Borrie, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Dixon, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Dubs, L.

Brookman, L.

Elder, L,

Burlison, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Carter, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L

Chorley, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Christopher, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Filkin, L.

355

Gale, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Gavron, L.

Morgan, L.

Golding, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Nicol, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Orme, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Parekh, L.

Grocott, L.[Teller]

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Pendry, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Harrison, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Haskel, L.

Sawyer, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Sewel, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Sheldon, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B,

Simon, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hoyle, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Hunt of kings Health, L

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Jones, L.

Thornton, B.

Judd, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Weatherill, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Whitaker, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Whitty, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Williams of Elvel, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Marsh, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
11.57 a.m.
Clause 1 [Licences to abstract water]:
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 8, at end insert "continuous"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should think that the Minister will be relieved to descend to a much more mundane and detailed matter. In Committee, he explained:
"The temporary licences are intended to be used to cover one-off abstractions of a duration of fewer than 28 consecutive days where large volumes of water are needed for short periods".—[Official Report, 27/3/03; col. GC6 1.]
He then gave examples of what he called "episodic events". We have considered the matter. A full licence does not imply use on consecutive days, nor does a transfer licence. It is wrong to use the same form of words for a temporary licence if the intention is that it should be for consecutive days. Inserting the word "continuous" to describe the period of 28 days would make the position absolutely clear. Otherwise, there is an element of doubt in the Bill's wording. This is a small amendment, but we think it significant. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I was inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, but I was strongly advised against it. In so far as the amendment would provide clarity in this context, it would provide "un-clarity" elsewhere. I am reliably informed that it is well established in law that the phrase,
"a period of less than"
means a continuous period. If we inserted "continuous" here, there would be doubt as to whether every other reference in legislation to "a period" continued to have that established meaning.
356
As usual, I take the advice of my learned friends seriously, and, with some regret, I must oppose the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his tacit agreement with the principles that we are enunciating, even if he says that, for other, practical reasons, the amendment would be unwise. I do not want to be responsible for throwing the British legal and legislative system into chaos, so I accept the explanation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Livsey of Talgarthmoved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
"IMPOUNDING TO CREATE LARGE RESERVOIRS
The Secretary of State in England and the First Minister in Wales shall have the power to refer planning applications for the creation of large reservoirs to a public inquiry."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I thank the Minister for several contributions that he made during the discussion of a similar amendment in Committee. Having taken account of that, I have tabled a simplified version of an amendment that we tabled in Committee.
The amendment relates to impounding to create large reservoirs and takes account of the impact that that will have on the social fabric of rural communities in the area of the reservoir and on the rural environment. Often, large reservoirs in the West and the North take up scarce flatland that, in fact, sustains the adjoining uplands. Often, it is the only flatland in the area. It is an important issue in Wales and the North of England, in particular, where such flatland is very precious.
The planning process is at the heart of the amendment. In Committee, the Minister was able to allay my fears to a large extent. Applications will go through a proper planning process, using the planning powers of local authorities and national parks, where they are the planning authority. The Minister also said that it would be possible to make appeals to the Secretary of State in England and the First Minister in Wales. As it happens, the Secretary of State and the First Minister often announce the result of appeals made to them, usually through an inspector that they have appointed. I thank the Minister for stressing those points.
The amendment takes account of all that, but it would insert a power—I would like it to be a duty—for the Secretary of State in England and the First Minister of the Assembly in Wales to refer planning applications to a public inquiry. That is the one point on which I need some satisfaction from the Minister. The ability to refer planning applications to a public inquiry is important. If there is an enormous reservoir that causes great destruction, there must be participation by the public, who should be able to make representations in a public consultation. That is particularly important for local representation.

357
There has been a series of tragic events, not only in Wales but in parts of England, with reservoirs being foisted on local communities. That does not happen these days, but I want to make sure that it will not happen, and we should have a public inquiry to ensure that. The public inquiry should include not only local representation but expert representation. There should, for example, be consideration of environmental impact assessments and the social impact of the loss of communities. In Wales, there is the question of the loss of the Welsh language, a loss that cannot be made good. There is the impact on farming, on the environment and on the communities themselves. If the Bill provides for a public inquiry, it will provide the necessary safeguards for public and local interests. The public will know that an independent inspector can reach an objective decision on such great disruption to communities and to the environment.
In Wales, the creation of large reservoirs has become a political cause célèbre. I know that it is not entirely legal to quote in the Welsh language in this place, but I must say that the phrase "Cofiwch Dryweryn"—"Remember Tryweryn"—is plastered over walls throughout central and north Wales as a rallying call against the oppressors. If we could have a public inquiry, there would be no oppressors. Justice will be seen to be done, not to be something that occurs behind closed doors. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, when public participation was introduced into planning, the grounds for doing so were that it would satisfy the public's concern about major planning decisions—even small planning decisions—because everyone would have an input into the decision-making process. Of course, the consequence was that the public proposed a multitude of solutions. In the end, there can be only one decision. My gentle experience was that, on the whole, the public was, as a result of the process, more dissatisfied than satisfied.
We are dealing here with major, highly controversial planning changes, in the form of large reservoirs. We do not know what a "large reservoir" is. There is a definition of "small reservoir" floating around in the Bill—25,000 cubic metres—but there is no definition of a large reservoir. That should be determined. Whatever happens, the creation of a large reservoir will, inevitably, be controversial. For those directly affected, it is almost bound to be an intolerable imposition. That is the reality.
A public inquiry would permit all the issues to be thoroughly explored. It would bring everything out into the open, so that the public can, if necessary, assess the overall background. There can still be only one decision. I have a shrewd idea—it cannot be a certainty—that no water undertaking will put forward an application for such a major reservoir without having a strong case, driven by necessity, for so doing. It is inevitable that, in the end, one party or the other—the local community or the water utility—will be dissatisfied with the answer. Another dreadful reality in this circumstance is that relatively few sites are
358
available for the construction of large reservoirs. Regrettably, communities can move and in the past they have done so.
Having said all that, I support the principle of the amendment, but I am fairly confident that I know the planning system well enough to believe that something of this nature could not be installed without a public inquiry. I have no doubt that the Minister will make that clear in his response.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Livsey described what happened when large reservoirs were created in Wales. Since then, there has been the introduction of the Aarhus Convention in the European Union, which is supposed to ensure that the public have a much greater say and more rights in terms of input into decisions of this kind. It would be very helpful if the Minister could make some reference to that in his reply.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not want to delve too much into the painful aspects of Welsh history or the merits or otherwise of public participation in planning decisions. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is right. I appreciate that this amendment has been changed somewhat, but it is unnecessary. In all those circumstances, there would be a public inquiry because planning permission for a new large reservoir would have to be sought from the local planning authority, as per normal. Indeed, there would probably be a compulsory purchase dimension as well. It is impossible to conceive of such a proposition that would be uncontroversial. Therefore, there would almost certainly be a public inquiry. Indeed, if the proposed reservoir were of regional or national significance, as it probably would be, the "call-in" powers would be used were there not to be a public inquiry.
The Aarhus Convention, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred, relates to public participation in decision making, which, in the UK context, would mean public inquiry. Although it is not directly applicable yet, proposals are still in preparation to give effect to those principles. That also points to having a public inquiry. Therefore, in all circumstances, for a large reservoir—I agree that there is a definitional issue, but the noble Lord's amendment does not help us with that—it is inconceivable that there would not be a public inquiry. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. He has clarified the situation to a considerable extent. I am grateful for his comments, which are now on the public record. In particular, the issue of compulsory purchase is a running sore in terms of whole villages being flooded—indeed, the local church or chapel, halls, farms and so forth—and we cannot take it lightly. A public inquiry brings about transparency, fairness and a considerable element of justice in that people are able to make representations. As regards the Aarhus Convention, I thank my noble friend Lady Miller for making that particular point. I thank, too, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for his thoughtful speech on this issue.

359
However, I should like to point out to him that, yes, people complain, but it is not a normal complaint when a whole language can disappear from a valley when only about 19 per cent of the Welsh population speak Welsh. Indeed, the language can die out as a result of a reservoir being established in a Welsh-speaking community. Therefore, there are very important issues here which are not of the normal type in terms of social responsibility.
I thank everyone who has spoken to this amendment and the Minister for his reply. It has given us a considerable measure of transparency as to what will happen in future. As this will be backed up by European legislation, I should not expect to see again what happened 30 and more years ago in Wales. I am reassured and therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Restrictions on impounding]:
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 42, at end insert—
"( ) A general consent to impound water in January, February or March will be notified, catchment area by catchment area, by the Environment Agency on those days to which it applies."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 6. In Committee, the Government's response to the amendment, as it was then worded, was to support the intention of facilitating the storage of floodwaters without unnecessary bureaucracy. The amendments, as now worded, would exempt small reservoirs filled only in the early part of the year at times and in places notified by the Environment Agency as having sufficient water flow to allow the impoundment. We consider that this will get around the problem of abstraction taking place during a winter drought. At the same time it will reduce both the workload and the cost to the agency, landowners and farmers. We hope that the Government might look more favourably at this improved amendment.
The concept of being able to store relatively small quantities of water freely and easily could have a very significant environmental benefit in country areas. I have built a small reservoir myself, and I am reminded that I should have declared an interest at the beginning of the proceedings as the holder of an abstraction licence. These small reservoirs enhance the environment considerably. They are very good for wildlife and they often create small wetland areas. There are trees, shrubs and wild fowl, which otherwise would not be there.
The more we can do to encourage small reservoirs, the better. The more we can free the administrative machine so that it can deal with the major issues which really are important and not have to deal with these smaller reservoirs, the better. I was going to say that they are "as nature intended", but of course a reservoir by definition cannot be that. It is an artificial creation. But the more natural it is, the more we should seek to free it from regulatory procedures. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I support all that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said. In speaking to our Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, grouped with Amendment No. 5, we have tried to give the Government yet more latitude to accept something along these lines by not specifying which months may be the wettest. We have left it to the Environment Agency to decide. In Committee, I mentioned January, February and March, but in subsequent discussions and on looking at the figures, I could see that in some years perhaps November and December might be more applicable.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, so eloquently said, the spirit of these amendments is to achieve two objectives; namely, the environmental good of creating small ponds and wildlife areas and allowing the farmer to use the top of that water for irrigating his crops. It would be for him to determine the balance between the use for irrigation and the wildlife areas.
I understand that if a farmer digs a hole in the ground that just fills up naturally, that will not be subject to a licence. If he makes an impoundment across a stream, that will be subject to a licence. There is still confusion as to when run-off water from the ground that appears in the form of a stream in winter is a stream, and when it is merely heavy water flooding over fields. Were there not this confusion, we would not need these amendments.
I understand why the Government and the Environment Agency might resist making impoundment across a stream something not subject to a licence. However, unless they are willing to accept the amendments, I believe that the Government need to reflect further because, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, pointed out, the situation is still not encouraging the end result we all wish to see.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord is trying to do with these amendments, but there are quite serious practical problems here. Amendment No. 5 aims to provide for a general consent to impound winter floodwater, subject to certain conditions. Its operation is linked to impounding works that can store water only during defined months, as provided for in Amendment No. 6. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 offer some flexibility over the definition of those months. However, in either situation it is doubtful whether a general consent could be satisfactorily tailored to meet the specific environmental needs and resource management of each site or watercourse. There is also the important practical problem that water captured during flood conditions then has to be stored, in-river, until needed.
It is important to reiterate that the existing controls and the proposals in the Bill apply only to works to impound water that are constructed across a natural watercourse. The noble Baroness made that point. Excavations on land designed to collect and store winter rainwater and which do not impound a natural watercourse or intercept water contained in underground streams are not subject to impounding licence controls. The natural filling of such

361
excavations during floods is not subject to any controls and the agency is already able to issue abstraction licences which allow water to be abstracted from rivers at times of high flows to fill those same excavations. So the system already provides a fair amount of flexibility.
Activities to impound water on-stream, irrespective of whether they are also subject to the drainage consent process under the Reservoirs Act 1975, could have major implications for the overall management of water resources. If these activities were deregulated or subject only to a "general consent", as the amendments would provide for during the designated months, they could well have serious consequences for the ecology of the watercourse and possibly the passage of fish. It would also impair the ability of the Environment Agency to ensure adequate flows of water downstream of the impounding works for the health of the watercourse or for any other lawful users of that water at the times in question.
Much of this relates to the predictability of the English weather. If we were to rely on the definition of the months referred to in some of the amendments, then clearly it would have been difficult to implement such a proposal this year in that it was much wetter in May than it was in February and March. The same would apply to any set of months. The following months could be subject to drought. We can have a winter drought, a spring flood and then a spring drought. If the changes which have taken place over the previous four months were repeated, it would impair the ability of the Environment Agency to operate the system over the subsequent months.
While I understand why the amendment has been put forward, I do not think that it is appropriate. Of course the charging structure provides ways for the agency to encourage the winter storage of water for subsequent summer use in that charges for winter-only abstractions are only one-tenth those of summer-only abstractions. That provides an incentive, but to give an absolute exclusion, as would be the case under these amendments, does not seem sensible given the British weather.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he say whether he is satisfied with the definitions set out in the present law between "surface water", taking the form of heavy waterflows producing a runnel down a field and therefore looking like a small stream, and what is meant by a "watercourse", which may dry out for nine months of the year?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, so far as the legislation can specify the variety of topography and rainfall described by the noble Baroness, I think I am satisfied that there is a difference between a watercourse that is full only intermittently and surface water resulting from a particularly heavy downpour, which forms the basis of the distinction. If legislation were to attempt to devise a more precise definition than that, we would
362
find ourselves in more difficulty than is the case under the common-sense interpretation already in place in the legislation.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her support and to the Minister for his explanation. As a matter of observation, I can say that in my dealings on this matter, a fairly satisfactory and flexible approach has been taken to the whole question.
I appreciate entirely that one small bank put across a stream in a narrow valley impounding a certain amount of water might not pose a problem, but if a series of neighbours down the valley were to do the same it could be that no water would arrive at the bottom, which might well cause problems. I accept that there are potential difficulties in the absolute laissez-faire approach we are expounding, but the principle of trying to free from regulation as much as we can is correct. It was for that reason that we tabled the amendment.
We shall study the Minister's explanation with some care, but at this stage and at this point in the day I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 6. 7 and 8 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Existing impounding works]:
Baroness Byfordmoved Amendment No. 9:
Page 4, line 39, leave out "otherwise" and insert "in relation to England"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this subject was debated in Committee on an amendment proposed by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose. It is hoped that my noble friend will be able to be with us later in the Report stage.
In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, felt that at one stage she was getting into deep water and said she would come back on the issue. She stated that she would await enlightenment on cross-border river basins. Perhaps the Minister is able to expand on the matter this time around.
Our major concern is that the wording could be used to enforce a different interpretation from "England" without such interpretation having to be debated in this House. If there is no such intention, then the wording appears at the least clumsy and perhaps out of line with normal usage. For instance, Section 91(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 refers to,
"the Secretary of State (as respects England)",
but not as respects otherwise. If there is a hidden meaning behind the proposed wording, then the Government's intention should be made clear. It is unusual to see in one Act different words which mean the same thing, while this Bill contains the wording I have already mentioned. That is why we seek to leave out the word "otherwise" and insert instead, "in relation to England". I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am in a slightly strange position with regard to this amendment. We looked at the concerns expressed by the noble Duke and other noble Lords in the last debate and felt that they were not valid. Indeed, I believe that the noble Baroness wrote to her noble friend and, I hope, to other noble Lords to explain that the intention was clear. However, while considering the totality of territorial definitions, we have found that we may need to table our own amendments on other issues, including, for example, the fact that the Scilly Isles have been left out of the current legislation as well as one or two other minor points. Therefore, while I do not accept the justification for the amendment, I think that part of it needs to be looked at again, but not the wording mentioned by the noble Duke in Grand Committee, which has been referred to again today.
We should like to take the amendment away and come back on the points I have just mentioned rather than those proposed by the noble Baroness.
12.30 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, that shows how useful these amendments are. I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. Given his undertaking to consider the issue of the right phraseology—presumably throughout the Bill—we are happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Rights to abstract small quantities]
Baroness Byfordmoved Amendment No. 10:
Page 7, leave out line 38 and insert—
"(i) domestic use on the holding;"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 10, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 11.
In the discussions in Grand Committee on a small group of amendments concerning this subject, we gave the example of the historic situation where water abstracted by a farmer had been used to the general benefit of everyone on a holding. The Minister chose to interpret our concern as being solely with the protection of existing rights. That was not our intention. He assured us that the protection is already there, through the Water Resources Act 1991, for rights which existed prior to the 1963 Act. My interpretation of his interpretation is that he believed our concern was too narrow.
The amendments relate to new abstraction rights. Many farms still comprise a farmhouse and one or two agricultural dwellings. Indeed, in some cases, such housing is not used for agricultural dwellings. Agricultural workers still grow their own garden produce and there is no reason to believe that a situation may not arise where such a worker would welcome a share in the water abstracted from a nearby river or stream. Farm buildings are also converted and let to tenants, who may or may not be agricultural workers and who may wish to have a garden and therefore use more water. As we understand the terms of the Bill and the Minister's response in Grand Committee, such usage would be prohibited.
364
In Grand Committee the Minister said that,
"any abstraction of up to 20 cubic metres per day for domestic purposes, regardless of whether the occupier uses the water, will be exempt".—[Official Report, 27/3/03; col. GC88.]
In fact the Bill states that the exemption applies if the abstraction is carried out by or on behalf of an occupier and,
"it is abstracted for use on that holding for either or both of the following purposes—

(i) the domestic purposes of the occupier's household;

(ii) agricultural purposes other than spray irrigation".

My question is a minor one. I am sure the Minister will tell me that this comes under "domestic purposes", but presumably gardening or any other such activity by a member of a family, a tenant or anyone occupying such buildings on an occupied holding would he considered as agricultural purposes. It is only a small point and I am sure that the Minister will be able to clarify it.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, a further point needs to be made. Nowadays, many farm buildings are being converted into temporary accommodation—for example, for holiday purposes—as part of the diversification activities of farmers on holdings. Very often the supply of water for such accommodation comes from the same source. What will happen in that situation? The conversions diversify the income flow of farms. As we know, incomes from pure farming are, at the present time, very low indeed and it is important that farmers diversify to ensure that their net income is sufficiently viable to allow them and their families to remain on the holding in the future.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we recognise that the amendments are similar in effect to the amendments discussed in Grand Committee. As I said then, they will not affect the way in which the new exemption for small abstractions applies to supplying domestic properties on an abstractor's land.
I should like to clarify the issue of tied cottages on an abstractor's land. Such cottages fall within the meaning of "household" for the purposes of the clause. They will already remain within the exemption. The new exemption will allow any abstraction up to 20 cubic metres. The limitation to occupier's household applies only to the issue of protected rights. Premises which are let will be covered within the limit.
All that the amendments would achieve is simply to extend the scope of the protected right associated with such an abstraction. It would extend it from domestic use for the occupier's household only, within the broader definition, to any domestic use on the entire holding of the abstractor. If the intention is to ensure that water abstracted under the exemption for small abstractions can be supplied to any domestic property on the abstractor's land, I have already reassured the noble Baroness that this is provided for in the new exemption. I hope that the noble Baroness will therefore feel able to withdraw her amendment.

365
During our consideration of the amendments we have identified a need to bring forward further amendments at Third Reading to ensure that the system of protected rights can adequately deal with changes to the threshold for abstraction licensing.
As to the meaning of the terms "gardening" and "horticulture", I believe that they are subsumed within "agriculture" except for those areas where they patently form a part of "domestic". Obviously there is a cross-over point somewhere along the spectrum but I find it easier not to define it in legal terms. It is a common-sense cross-over point.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, having had a late night last night, we are into common sense. I thank the Minister for that explanation. It has helped to clarify one or two of the points we raised. Interestingly, it has stimulated more thought and we shall come back with further amendments at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Baroness Byfordmoved Amendment No. 12:
Page 8, line 2, after "work" insert "provided that such work will not impinge upon pre-existing licensed abstraction producing potable water"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I return to an important issue that was raised in Grand Committee. The amendment has been brought forward again in order to seek clarification from the Minister. In Grand Committee he stated:
"I will need to consider the issue raised by the water bottlers because in certain circumstances they have a specific concern. We may be able to deal with that in a different way".—[Official Report, 27/3/03; col. GC89.]
For the benefit of noble Lords who did not attend the Grand Committee, perhaps I may raise one or two issues. During the Grand Committee debate there was a query whether the 12-year limit had been specified in writing by the Environment Agency. This time limit and its bureaucratic rationale was set out in detail by the Environment Agency in its policy document, Managing Water Abstraction, which was published in April 2001, and was confirmed again in the written guidance for stakeholders published in March this year. It is the Environment Agency's strength of attachment to the period of 12 years which causes so much concern.
During the debate the Minister made some helpful statements about taking investment needs into account. We hope that in the pursuit of these amendments this can be clearly established as a principle. In the Environment Agency's guidance to stakeholders there is no reference to the payback on investment as a criterion for granting longer-term licences and this clearly needs rectification.
In Grand Committee I referred to the depreciation accounting practices of the water utilities and it might be helpful to highlight some of the financial commitments there.
366
The first feature is that investment is needed for business expansion, not only in bottling equipment but in new bottling halls, warehouses and connected infrastructure. The payback on such investment, which normally requires bank loans, is usually calculated at 12 years. Obviously, we will be speaking on investment at greater length later. We sought recognition from the Minister that environmental damage could be caused by drilling connected with exempted abstractions. The Minister was opposed to amending the Bill, but our advice from Environment Agency officials is that a legislative requirement to assess the impact of exempt abstractions is essential. I understand that the Government wrote to the Environment Agency on this issue but have not had clarification.
Perhaps I can share with the House the technical point that natural mineral waters must be, to quote from the contribution of the British Soft Drinks Association,
"free from pollution at source"
and
"have a consistent mineral content".
I hope that the Minister can deal with this point in a slightly more sympathetic way than was the case in Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Baroness explaining the purpose of the amendment at some length. We have said that as many abstractors as possible should come within the regime and be subject to the same level playing field. So, for the sake of consistency, and although we are interested in the Minister's reply, we do not support the proposal. We realise that there is a great market for and interest in bottled mineral water, but the Bill is also aimed at improving the quality and demand for ordinary drinking water from taps—a very important aim.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, we are considering the Water Bill in the context of the United Kingdom—well, mainly of England. When it comes to potable water, there is a trend—which we cannot stop, much as I decry it—for people to drink bottled water when the water coming out of the tap is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, says, more than adequate. Indeed, many of the tests have proved that there are fewer bacteria in the water coming out of the taps than in bottled waters. As we import an enormous amount of drinking water, I should have thought that, in the overall context of the balance of payments, if nothing else, it would be a good idea to examine the issue.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I would like to write to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, on the importation of water. I know that there are some across the Channel and elsewhere who would be deeply offended. There are those of us who view the practice of buying water in bottles when we have already paid for it in the tap as a rather odd aberration—except in Wales, where Brecon water is obviously better than anything else.

367
On time-limiting of licences, the agency can grant licences longer than 12 years; its guidance sets out criteria for doing so. It may be considered if the applicant provides a business case satisfying certain tests, one being that the lifetime of the infrastructure inseparably associated with the authorisation will extend over the desired period of validity. I hope that that is helpful.
The clause that is the subject of the amendment seeks to extend the existing right of some abstractors of small quantities of groundwater to construct boreholes without a licence to all such abstractions. It is therefore a deregulatory measure. However, Amendment No. 12 seeks to introduce selective control of those boreholes that would have an adverse effect on a neighbouring source and introduce additional regulation contrary to the objective of further deregulating small abstractions that have no impact on the overall management of water resources—a point underlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer.
The amendment seeks to prevent damage to adjacent potable supplies by controlling the construction of some wells or boreholes where the abstraction of water is to be exempted. However, it does so based on a selective test of adverse effect, which means that developers cannot know at the outset whether what they intend is exempt from control. They would not know in advance whether they might face criminal sanctions. We believe this is not workable. We recognise the concern raised, but we consider that the proposal is not justified to cater for the very few such problems that may arise and that there are sufficient safeguards available to protect water sources.
I understand from our discussions in Grand Committee that a case was referred to by the noble Baroness in which a potable water supply might have been jeopardised by the construction of a borehole for a small abstraction. This case is one of the exceptions, and I believe it was resolved satisfactorily through the planning process.
There are codes of good practice; the Environment Agency has one on its Internet site. There is also a British Standard on the subject. The well-drilling industry should take note of such codes to help ensure that incidental damage does not occur.
I hope I have covered the points. If the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, would like me to reply in more detail on a particular case, I may be able to do so.
12.45 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her good explanation. I am still somewhat concerned about the fact that this matter will not appear on the face of the Bill. On so many of the issues we discussed in Committee and will discuss again, it is suggested that provision is made for them—or it is implied. I have become very sceptical about Bills. I tell people that they want to worry if something is not on the face of the Bill and also if it is. There is often a gap
368
left in-between when it comes to interpretation by whoever is responsible for interpreting it. However, I am grateful to the noble Baroness.
As for there being only a few people affected, all small businesses start small and, with luck, grow into bigger businesses. If the idea is good, there are more businesses, and I would like to make sure they are all UK businesses, not importing water from overseas. The Minister referred to a particular case which I understand was dealt with satisfactorily.
Perhaps I should push my local bottled water: Buxton is not far away, but much nearer to home is Swithland in Leicestershire, which the noble Baroness knows very well. I hear what she says and hope that her words come true when they are interpreted. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Rights to abstract for drainage purposes, etc]:
Baroness Byfordmoved Amendment No. 13:
Page 9, leave out lines 13 and 14.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Bill says on page 9:
"The restriction on abstraction shall not apply … within the district of an internal -drainage board if … the water abstracted is transferred to another area of inland water—
and,
"the sole or main purpose of the transfer is to augment that other area".
On page 10, the Bill states that land drainage does not include,
"transferring water from one source of supply to another … solely or mainly in order to augment the latter".
That may be interpreted as an exemption granted to a body—namely, an internal drainage board—for an activity that is then ruled out of order. Having read it and considered it again, we feel that that is a contradiction, for which I would be very grateful for a ministerial explanation. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the exemption allows movement of water by an internal drainage board within its own district outside the licensing control. That is because it is for use within that district, which can be competently managed by the internal drainage board in that district. I am not sure what other use the boards would be making of the water than to augment the level of water that they had available. For whatever purpose they wanted to augment the level of water, they would need the exemption from what would otherwise be licensing for the purposes of raising the level within their own district. The provisions proscribe use for something outside that district.
The noble Baroness may have in mind whether one could use the exemption from licensing for flood control purposes or protection of land that would otherwise be encroached on by water. The answer is, "Yes", but it would require an abstraction further upstream, which would raise or alter the level further downstream.

369
The restriction is restriction within the area, to a quantum of water, and it is difficult to see how the amendment, by deleting that restriction, would make much difference in practice. One could argue either way, but the restriction is to within an area, and to delete the whole of those two lines would make that less clear.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, it just seemed very strange that on one page, one set of rules applies, and on the next page a different set applies. The matter is not worth pursuing at this stage, but perhaps between now and Third Reading the lawyers might consider it, as I may have made a mistake, or there may be some misunderstanding with which I have not got to grips. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Byfordmoved Amendment No. 14:
Page 9, line 36, at end insert—
"() In the case of any emergency abstraction the Agency, upon receiving notice of the abstraction in question, shall investigate the current position under each of the headings listed in subsection (2A)(a), (b) and (c) above; and only if the danger no longer exists under any of those headings and if there is no perceived threat in the immediate future, may the Agency conclude that the emergency does not exist."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment arises from a debate surrounding a series of government amendments. It became clear that legislation defines the start of an emergency but not the end of it. The Minister seemed to admit that there is not even guidance on the subject; that is why we are returning to it. The amendment would put into the Bill an instruction to the agency that would make it clear when the agency might declare when an emergency did not exist. For the purposes of the Bill, that might be taken to be both when the emergency was over and when a particular situation did not amount to an emergency. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the amendment proposes an express duty on the Environment Agency to investigate notice of an emergency drainage abstraction. It would normally be the abstractor rather than the agency that drew attention to that situation. The proposed amendment would require investigation of all cases, whether or not the agency was content that the abstractor had rightly called it an emergency situation and the agency was co-operating with the abstractor in dealing with the emergency situation. The amendment would confine emergency situations to the types of threat set out in the clause. But the agency is already bound to interpret emergencies in that way, and it would have to give reasons if it disagreed with an abstractor.
The amendment aims to set down the criteria that would determine the grant of a licence for irrigation in the temporary transitional period. It is intended that transitional arrangements for all abstractions coming
370
under licence control as a result of the removal of exemptions under the Bill will be covered regulations made under Clause 95. The regulations will be published in the normal way, before the commencement of the Clause 7.
Some of the concerns that lie behind the amendment may be covered by the regulations. However, to stipulate as the amendment does is rather taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut, in that most emergency situations will be dealt with by co-operation between the Environment Agency and the abstractor. Any limitation to that will be covered by regulations yet to be published. There will be not only guidance but regulations.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. The discussions that we have just had included mention of the fact that regulations will be introduced to cover our concerns. I have to say again, as I have said on many occasions in Committee, that I am never enormously happy that so many things are done by regulation. We have already had that discussion. It is a small but important point. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Byfordmoved Amendment No. 15:
Page 10, line 8, at end insert—
"( ) In deciding to extend abstraction licensing to irrigation by virtue of subsection (5) above, the Agency shall have regard to the length of time such abstraction has been practised and the purposes to which it has been put.""
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we believe that the amendment is very important. When the subject was debated in Committee, many contributions were made and concerns were expressed by all speakers that the needs of those who use trickle irrigation are not met by the Bill. Trickle irrigation may be used by small enterprises, but there are many examples of businesses with a turnover and wage bills in excess of a million pounds. There is a strong fear that, because they have not had to have a licence in the past, their needs may be put to the bottom of the queue in any consideration of abstraction licences in the area where water is scarce.
It is quite possible that a trickle irrigator may contribute more to the economy of the river basin than all the licensed abstractors put together. It is equally possible that a trickle irrigator may have been employing that method for longer than some licensed abstractors in the area. It is necessary that their proper concerns are catered for in the Bill and, at the very least, that those who were involved in trickle irrigation in the past must be consulted at the start of the discussions, when they are required to comply with the legislation. I beg to move.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I would very much like to support my noble friend's amendment. Those who have been involved in trickle irrigation are now feeling—it is no exaggeration to say—some degree of

371
vulnerability, as they find themselves being brought into the abstraction licensing system for the first time. As my noble friend said, many of those operators—horticulturists, principally—have been involved in trickle irrigation for a long time. Indeed, some of the investments have been of a very substantial and long-term nature. So I think it absolutely right and proper that the Environment Agency should have a concern for the impact of the new controls on those businesses.
There is another point which I raised in Committee and should like to raise again. It is essential to take into account not only that trickle irrigation businesses often have considerable economic importance in the areas in which they operate and are therefore important for jobs, but that restrictions placed on their operations could well lead to increased imports from abroad. I have no doubt that the Environment Agency will wish to consider the impact that those imports might have on pollution and all the various additional costs and difficulties that go with it. So it is essential, as my noble friend said, for the Environment Agency to look very carefully at the impact that these abstraction licences will have on trickle irrigation.
To my knowledge—the Minister may be able to correct me on this—the Environment Agency has not yet given any commitments to those involved in trickle irrigation and very little discussion has taken place. I therefore think that Amendment No. 15 is very reasonable; in fact I am not so sure that it could not have gone a stage or two further. I very much hope that the Government will accept it.
1 p.m.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, this is indeed a fairly innocuous amendment. It merely states that,
"the Agency shall have regard to the length of time such abstraction has been practised and the purposes to which it has been put".
That seems a very reasonable proposal, should abstraction licensing be extended to such irrigation. Clearly it is necessary to have regard to the matters dealt with in this amendment.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am slightly confused about where we are on this. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, moved Amendment No. 15, and the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, referred to the terms of Amendment No. 15, but some of the more general remarks about trickle irrigation seem to relate more to subsequent amendments which we have yet to reach. This part of the clause deals with transitional arrangements. The Environment Agency has made it clear that there will be a period of two years for licence applications to be made and that abstractions by existing operators, including trickle irrigation, will continue to be lawful during that period. Likewise, the Environment Agency would not be expected to issue licences to other people which would affect that
372
traditional use of the water. Therefore, there would be a continuation of the period until the formal licence came into play.
The question of a more general exemption for trickle irrigation comes later, in Amendment No. 17, I think. During that period when people are making applications, the continued viability of their businesses would be discussed. However, as trickle irrigators are above the threshold quantum of abstractors, they should be treated on a level playing field along with everyone else. I shall return to that argument later. However, the sudden withdrawal of access to trickle irrigation, which is covered by the area to which Amendment No. 15 applies, would be covered by that two-year transitional period. I think that we will be returning to the wider arguments.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I did not think that there was any confusion. However, just in case there was, I was speaking to Amendment No. 15, which amends page 10, line 8 and provides that the agency,
"shall have regard to the length of time such abstraction has been practised and the purposes to which it has been put".
I hope that that is the amendment to which the noble Lord responded.
I thank my noble friend Lord Peel for his contribution. Trickle irrigation is very important to horticulture and is a growing part of the community. I am delighted about that. If climate change continues, we will be able to produce many different types of vegetable and other crops. My noble friend referred to the pollution caused by transporting imported food, which I call food miles. There is a huge number of such miles.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, for his comments. However, I am not at all satisfied with the Minister's response. That is why I queried whether he was responding to the right amendment. I should therefore like to test the opinion of the House.
1.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 15) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 89.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Craigavon, V.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Crathorne, L.

Arran, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Astor, V.

Dahrendorf, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Dholakia, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Blaker, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Blatch, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Bowness, L.

Elton, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Ezra, L.

Buscombe, B.

Feldman, L.

Byford, B.

Fookes, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Glentoran, L.

373

Hanningfield, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Henley, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Higgins, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Hooson, L.

Rawlings, B.

Howe, E.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Kimball, L.

Reay, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Redesdale, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Rees, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Renton, L.

Ludford, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Luke, L.

Rogan, L.

Lyell, L.

Roper, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Russell, E.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

McNally, L.

Sandwich, E.

Maddock, B

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Marlesford, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Masham of Ilton, B.

Selborne, E.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Skelmersdale, L. [Teller]

Monro of Langholm, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Montrose, D.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Noakes, B.

Tordoff, L.

Northover, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Trumpington, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Vivian, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Walmsley, B.

Peel, E.

Walpole, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Ahmed, L.

Harrison, L.

Alli, L.

Haskel, L.

Andrews, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hollick, L.

Bach, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Berkeley, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Hoyle, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Borrie, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Brookman, L.

Burlison, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Carter, L.

Jones, L.

Christopher, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Crawley, B.

David, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Desai, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dixon, L.

Nicol, B.

Dubs, L.

Parekh, L.

Elder, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Pendry, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Radice, L.

Filkin, L.

Rea, L.

Gale, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Gavron, L.

Sewel, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Sheldon, L.

Golding, B.

Simon, V.

Goldsmith, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Goudie, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Temple-Morris, L.

374

Turner of Camden, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Whitaker, B.

Whitty, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Wilkins, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
1.15 p.m.
Clause 9 [Power to provide for .further exemptions]:
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domermoved Amendment No. 16:
Page 12, line 4, after "State" insert "shall make regulations when requested to by such statutory bodies as are concerned with water management or"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 16 seeks to address some of the confusion that arises in this confused and confusing area of legislation. That confusion was illustrated by the laughter that erupted on all sides of the House when Amendment No. 13 was discussed.
When we addressed the matter in Grand Committee, I sought to exempt from the provisions of the Bill the traditional method of irrigating fields at time of flood known as warping. Subsequent to reading the Minister's reply and having further discussion with various parties on the matter, I decided that the simplest way to deal with it at this stage—although I bear in mind my own feelings and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, on increasing regulation—was to allow the Secretary of State to make further regulations with regard to exemptions.
My amendment seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State will make regulations to increase the number of exemptions when he is requested to do so by statutory bodies concerned with mater management. I refer to such bodies as drainage boards involved with drawing up water level management agreements, flood defence committees and river basin management committees. I refer to the latter in the optimistic hope that a later amendment in my name will be accepted. Under the terms of my amendment any of those bodies could request the Secretary of State to make exemptions that applied to their part of the country. I believe that not all the exemptions that are necessary are covered by the Bill. Perhaps with one or two exceptions—I do not include myself among them—people do not have a firm grasp of all the implications of the matter that we are discussing. I have tried to phrase the amendment fairly widely to provide some latitude for the future. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am happy to support my noble friend's amendment and I admire the effort she has put into trying to reach a compromise. I should like to make just one point. I speak as a member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Will the Minister give an undertaking that any regulations made under the amendment, if it were accepted, would not be proceeded with if the Joint Committee was not convinced that they were intra vires?
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the principle of the amendment is in a sense unexceptionable in that if

375
local knowledge and local information indicate that a situation can be resolved only by regulation, it is right that that should be requested. But we have to realise that any regulation, unless it is tightly defined, will presumably apply nationally. It might be difficult to draft regulations that would apply to only one specific instance. I am not sure whether the amendment is practical in detail. In principle, one would like to see it agreed to, but, from the point of view of drafting regulations that are national in their impact, it may be difficult.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness has certainly widened the scope with the amendment, but has not left any latitude. The amendment would force the Secretary of State to make regulations when statutory bodies concerned with water management, which are not defined in the amendment, request them. Obviously, any statutory body would be listened to by the Secretary of State and the National Assembly, and any request would be taken seriously. That is understood.
The Government always have to balance a range of considerations and interests to ensure fair treatment to all concerned. In that case, it would not be appropriate to give the bodies effectively the right to instruct the Secretary of State to make regulations removing exemptions. I was even more alarmed when the noble Baroness implied that a lot of the exemptions could be local and specific rather than general. The final decision on such requests must rest with the Secretary of State and the National Assembly, rather than undefined statutory bodies.
I was asked about regulations under the clause. Clearly, they would be published for public consultation and consideration by Parliament in the normal way. including the Joint Committee. If that committee were to indicate that in its opinion they were ultra vires, as the noble Earl suggested, the Government and the House as a whole would have to take that extremely seriously. We would obviously take legal advice as well, as the committee no doubt would have done if it had issued a suggestion in those terms. That would be a very serious inhibition on proceeding with them. I hope that that goes far enough to assure the noble Earl on that point.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I want to ask the Minister for a point of clarification. Would it be helpful if the Secretary of State made regulations after consultation with statutory bodies? The statutory bodies concerned with water management could have some sort of locus in terms of consultation.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there would always be such consultation. I think that the noble Baroness is seeking that statutory bodies have a right of initiative. They have that right; they have the right to suggest to the Secretary of State that she make regulations. However, the amendment suggests that statutory bodies shall
376
require the Secretary of State to make regulations. That seems a step too far. They already have the right to make such representations.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his view on my amendment, and I note the contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I still have some fears that the Bill will not be sufficiently sensitive to some issues that I raised in Grand Committee about the management of particular areas but, by defining them locally rather than by the general behaviour of estuarine rivers or geological issues, perhaps the amendment is weakened.
I fear that we shall find some cases in future that the Bill has not anticipated and so will not be dealt with in a satisfactory way. However, I guess that we cannot design a perfect world through the Bill. Given my inability to do so either, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Byfordmoved Amendment No. 17:
Page 12, line 11, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State shall make regulations providing for qualifying abstractions for the purpose of trickle irrigation to be classed as an exemption."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we tabled the amendment again because, in Grand Committee, the Minister seemed reasonably in favour of the principle but felt that the amendment was in the wrong place. In bringing it back on Report, I am trying to get clarification on that. Many contributions in Committee acknowledged the fact that some trickle irrigators were small users of water, and some were large ones. On that there is no disagreement around the House. Therefore, in some circumstances, some trickle irrigators may need to he viewed in a stronger light than others. The intention of the amendment is to give the Secretary of State the responsibility of bringing forward regulations.
I shall speak from the point of view of the NFU and on behalf of its colleagues involved in trickle irrigation. They seek a firm commitment from the Government and the Environment Agency to enter into early discussions with representatives of the industry as to how trickle irrigators might be brought into an abstraction regime, and to negotiate the nature of any transitional arrangements that will be introduced. Farmers and growers who use trickle irrigation are not opposed to the principle of bringing it within extraction regime licensing, but they have genuine concerns about the implications for their businesses and how the new controls will be implemented.
As I said, many of the businesses are of high value and require the maximum possible time to make the necessary adjustments to accommodate the requirements

377
of the new regulatory regime. The Minister has indicated that there will be a two-year period in which negotiations take place. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we feel strongly that horticulture is an important class of occupation, and is to be regarded very seriously. That is why we supported Amendment No. 15, which stated that,
"the Agency shall have regard to the length of time such abstraction has been practised".
Then there were all the issues of food miles raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford.
In terms of Amendment No. 17, however, I am slightly nervous about the number of different classes that we could be asked to regard as exemptions. Although I have enormous sympathy with those brought into the regime as trickle irrigators, I suspect that exemptions will begin to create an unfair playing field, not least those who have not held abstraction licences before and are applying for them for the first time. We explored in Grand Committee the scarcity of water throughout England, as exemplified by the map produced by the centre for national water demand.
Although I sympathise with the purpose and spirit of the amendment, we would not want to support any group of users who fell over the threshold that requires a licence to be held in order to be classed as exemptions.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in a sense, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has referred to my exact point. This amendment seeks to exempt a whole class of users, irrespective of the amount of water they use. One recognises the fact that we are bringing trickle irrigators into the scheme for the first time, but they are quite substantial users of water; indeed, some more so than others. Although in many cases trickle irrigation may be seen as quite an efficient use of water, that is not always the case. Recent reports tend to show that trickle is not always the most efficient system, especially if the system is not maintained—or, frankly, if it is left on by default—which, regrettably, does happen—because, unlike spray irrigation, you cannot see the water.
I am not in favour of exempting whole classes of water users from what, in some respects, is quite a high threshold. Indeed, I am not sure that it is in any sense in the interests of horticulture. The maintenance of maximum availability and the efficient use of water for the horticulture industry, especially in the drier south and east of the country, are important considerations. One trickle irrigator could well abstract excess water and damage another trickle irrigator. Under the old exemption, cases arose where, for example, one trickle irrigator abstracted too much water from the system and that had an effect on another enterprise further downstream. In one case of which I am aware, such abstraction led to the bankruptcy of the other enterprise.
378
I do not believe that there is a good justification for complete exemption of trickle irrigators. Indeed, if we were to exempt them in the intensive horticulture areas, one horticultural enterprise could seriously damage another. Therefore, I do not regard this provision as being an attack on the horticulture sector; it is a protection for them.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for expressing her concerns in this regard in advance of this stage of the Bill. I take on board the fact that there are irrigators who use the system wisely, and others that do not use it so wisely. I understand the Minister's argument. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I believe this to be a convenient moment for an adjournment of the proceedings. I beg to move that the Report stage be adjourned until after Starred Questions.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
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 1.31 to 2 p.m. for Judicial Business and to 3 p.m. for Public Business.]

Unemployment
Lord Dormand of Easingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the present unemployment rate for (a) England, (b) the southern region and (c) the northern region.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, as my noble friend will know, we do not have a southern region or a northern region for statistical purposes so I do not have statistics on that basis. However, I have other figures that may be helpful. The current ILO unemployment rate for England is 5 per cent. Across the country it ranges from a low of 3.6 per cent in the South West to a high of 7.1 per cent in London. The North East's unemployment rate is currently 6.5 per cent.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, as my noble friend says, I am aware there are not specific southern and northern regions but she has given figures for those areas. Can she confirm that the figure for the northern region that she has just given is the highest of

379
any region in the country and that that region has had the highest unemployment ever since figures were kept?
Despite all that the Government have done for the region—and they have done a great deal—is it not obvious that the policies, as they stand at the moment, are not succeeding? Can my noble friend say whether new approaches to the problems are being made and, if so, what they are? Does my noble friend agree that, despite the well publicised failures in the region, like Siemens and Samsung, it is very important that in the present circumstances the smaller companies, of which there are dozens, should be retained? Are the Government considering that very important problem?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to tell my noble friend that he is not right about his first statistic, which is good news. The region with the highest unemployment is London, particularly boroughs such as Tower Hamlets. However, the North East runs a close second. I am also happy to tell him that since 1992, when the unemployment figure for the North East was indeed the highest at over 12 per cent, that figure has now almost halved—down to the 6.5 per cent I gave in my first reply. The House will know—as my noble friend does—that some of the structural reasons for that long history of relatively high unemployment figures compared with the rest of England are associated with declining industries like coal and that coastal towns have also been badly hit.
One of the difficulties is the demographic problem facing the North East. The region has, for example, the lowest employment of people over 50 of any region in the country; it has virtually the lowest employment rate for ethnic minorities of anywhere in the country; it has the lowest percentage of women in employment of anywhere in the country; it has the lowest number of self-employed of anywhere in the country. That is why government strategy is to seek to target help on those groups who wish to work and have potential for work. That help ranges from New Deal to Neighbourhood Renewal, to coalfield funds, to the Single Regeneration Budget and Working in Europe.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the North East of England has always done its best to help itself? Does she appreciate that at present, thanks to the competitiveness of a section of our traditional industry, there is a very good chance of a considerable proportion of a contract for the building of a new aircraft carrier going to the north? If it does, that will be very good news for employment in the areas of Tyneside and Teesside.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, should that happen, I am sure we would all welcome it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that to understand unemployment we need to look at ward-sized pockets as well as at regions? In the light of that,
380
can she tell the House the number of wards with more than 10 per cent adult male unemployment in the north, in London and in the south other than London?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was kind enough to indicate that that was his concern, so I took the opportunity to acquire the figures for him. Figures are not available at ward level but only at local authority level. At local authority level there are no districts in the UK where male unemployment is above 10 per cent. I am sure he will he pleased about that. Currently, the highest figure is for Tower Hamlets at 9.8 per cent. Four of the local authorities with the worst unemployment records are in central London: Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Lambeth and Southwark. The others, Middlesborough, Liverpool, Derry, Birmingham, Kingston upon Hull, Manchester and so on, come down in descending order. It is a combination of inner city areas where ethnic minority populations, for all kinds of reasons, including discrimination, have reduced access to jobs, of declining industries, and of coastal towns. Those seem to be the areas in which male unemployment remains highest.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House the increase in unemployment figures in England she expects as a result of the Government's policy on pensions announced yesterday, which will add huge burdens to the cost of business, made necessary by the tax of £5 billion that the Government is exacting every day from pensioners?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, there may be fluctuating unemployment figures today for reasons of which your Lordships, being parliamentarians, will be aware. However, I do not expect employment to fluctuate as a result of our pensions strategy. I am delighted that the noble Lord has given me the opportunity to move on to pensions strategy. I am absolutely delighted that yesterday the House gave such a warm welcome, led by the noble Lords, Lord Higgins and Lord Oakeshott, to the Government's proposals to increase the security for pension saving, thus extending the coverage of pension protection and the opportunity for greater prosperity in people's older age.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, will the noble Baroness answer my noble friend's question about the unemployment she expects in England as a result of those measures?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I have. I suggested none at all.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that coping with problems of unemployment in the provinces has been aided in the past by transferring work from London and the South East to those areas? Does she agree that that former policy was successful? Is she prepared to try to persuade some of her ministerial colleagues that it is worth revisiting? Would that not only help the

381
provincial parts of the country that need additional jobs, but also perhaps ease some of the burdens and pressures in London and the South East?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords, I agree entirely. It is certainly the Government's strategy to relocate as far as possible those jobs, particularly in the Civil Service, which appropriately can move there. I believe that the House would recognise that much of the regeneration of the North West, in particular, has been aided by the relocation of government offices in that region.

MOSAIC Small Satellite Programme
3.8 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Rodingasked Her Majesty's Government:
When government funds will be committed for their share in the MOSAIC small satellite programme, to match those committed by the two research councils involved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, under the first round of the Micro Satellite Applications in Collaboration programme, known as MOSAIC, the Department of Trade and Industry is investing £15 million in partnership with industry. Those commitments cover three projects and run until 2005. Decisions on any further rounds of the MOSAIC programme will need to take account of evaluation of the first round projects and availability of funding in DTI.
I understand that the Natural Environment Research Council and the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council are assessing a possible micro satellite project which they may propose for support if the DTI launches a second round of MOSAIC in due course.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, was it always envisaged that the MOSAIC programme would have an annual programme of support for those micro satellite exercises? Does he recognise that the first round had little real science in it? Will the Minister further confirm that the first round began some three years ago, and that MOSAIC is the UK's only national space programme? I hope that he will recognise how frustrating it is, both for the research councils he mentioned and for the scientists involved, that they are still having to wait for news from the Government as to whether there will be a second round. That does not seem a very satisfactory way of proceeding.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, perhaps I may deal shortly with all five questions. The answer to the first is "no": it was never envisaged, and never stated, that this was an annual programme. It was always envisaged that the programme would run until
382
2005. We shall probably look at the matter again in 2004 and make an announcement then. Secondly, there were no science projects in the first round. It was about developing capability in micro-satellite programmes. At that point, none of the research councils put forward projects, or indeed had money to do so. Thirdly, the programme will run until 2005, rather than 2003. It is the only national space programme. The greater proportion of our funding goes through ESA, where it is very effectively spent. The research councils have not agreed, or peer reviewed, the Earthshine project, and they are working on the basis that no funding will be available until 2004–05.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Astronomy and Space Environment Group. Will the MOSAIC satellite programme in any way interfere with radio-astronomy? A previous programme dealing with mobile phones—not a British one—was susceptible to interference of that kind. Will the Minister take this opportunity to congratulate Professor Colin Pillinger and the British team working on the Beagle 2 Mars lander project, which he did a great deal to get off the ground? We wish the Lander well on its arrival on Mars. However, it was all a bit lastminute.com. Perhaps in future there will be more composite and planned space efforts which will be more exciting, and, it is to be hoped, as successful as this one will be.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, so far as I know, none of the three projects funded in the first round of MOSAIC will interfere with radio-astronomy. I will certainly pass on the views expressed about Colin Pillinger. I have been congratulating him fairly steadily for the past three months on what I think is a superb project. It is a high-risk project, but is a brilliant piece of British science and engineering. There was a great deal of difficulty in funding the programme, because it arose very late in the day—it was put forward at the last minute due to the failure of the Russian mission, at a time when all the money from government had already been committed. It was therefore extremely difficult, and we had to take a very entrepreneurial view towards funding it.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the MOSAIC programme is an integral part of the European Space Agency programme? Will he further confirm that the funding that is currently available will be sufficient to finance the Earthshine programme, which is aimed at measuring solar emissions and energy reflected back to the Earth—a project which is integral to our
understanding of global warming?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, no—MOSAIC is an entirely British programme. It is not integral to the European programmes. As I said, we shall be considering in due course whether to fund a further round of MOSAIC projects. Only one of the satellites has been launched under the first group of programmes. We shall probably look at this matter

383
again in 2004 and consider whether there should be another round and how much money we should put into it.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that all member states participating in the work of the European Space Agency spend more, as a proportion of their subscription to the ESA, than does the United Kingdom? Will the Minister confirm that only Austria, Belgium, Ireland and Norway spend less money on these programmes than does the United Kingdom? If the facts are as I have stated, how are they compatible with the statement often made by the Government that they intend the United Kingdom to be the leader in scientific research and development?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I believe that those facts are broadly correct. That situation resulted from a considerable run-down of our space programme during the period under the previous government. We have not yet been able to increase the amount that has gone into the programme. We avoid some of the rather costly mistakes that have been made by other governments. We do not invest in launchers or in the international space station. As regards value for money in terms of achieving scientific, commercial and environmental objectives—the three main objectives of our space programme—we are highly successful.
Lord Oxburgh: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, it is time for the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, to put his Question.

Economic and Monetary Union
3.16 p.m.
Lord Tebbitasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will set out the constitutional question concerning entry into monetary union to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer alluded during his television interview with Sir David Frost on 18th May.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out in his Statement on EMU on 9th June:
"The Government's view is that, if the economic case is clear and unambiguous, then the constitutional issue, while a factor in the decision, should not be a bar to entry".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/6/03; col. 408.]
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, not for the first time in response to Questions from me on this subject, he has totally ignored the Question? The Question I asked was: what is the constitutional issue to which the Prime Minister as well as the Chancellor of the Exchequer have alluded? It is a
384
constitutional issue which the Prime Minister says makes it necessary for us to have a referendum on the euro but not on the convention. What is it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Prime Minister did not say that it was a constitutional issue which made it necessary for us to have a referendum on the euro. I have been looking back over the Answers that I have given to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, both in this Chamber and in writing. On 27th July 1999 I gave an Answer quoting remarks made by the Chancellor of Exchequer in October 1997, who said,
"that to share a common monetary policy with other states does represent a major pooling of economic sovereignty". —[Official Report, 27/7/99, col. WA 173.]
That is a constitutional issue.
It is a fact that member states are not sovereign in areas where the Community has competence. This includes monetary policy aspects of EMU. But the pass was sold—if I may use that pejorative phrase—not in 1997 or in 2003, but when the United Kingdom joined the European Economic Community, at which time, without a referendum, it was recognised that member states are not sovereign in areas where the Community has competence.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, may I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, on finding a constitutional issue in the endless repetition of the mantra of the five tests which constituted the Chancellor's interview with David Frost on 18th May? Is not the real issue for the Government that further work on the euro should not be kept as a sacred preserve of the Treasury priesthood, which has been Euro-sceptic since the Common Market was founded, but should be much more open and a matter for the Government as a whole and the public as a whole?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper relates to the constitutional issue and what the Chancellor said to Sir David Frost on 18th May. I have looked up the transcript. What he actually said was:
"The constitutional issue should not be a barrier to joining. That was a decision we made as a government in 1997".
I think that answers the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, as well.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, when the Minister confesses to my noble friend Lord Tebbit that the pass of our parliamentary sovereignty was sold under the 1972 Act, how does he explain the letter that the Labour Prime Minister, Mr Harold Wilson, sent through every letterbox in the land in 1975, stating that no sovereignty was at stake, that the danger of monetary union had been removed for ever, and that what we were voting about was merely a common market?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the only referendum—the only occasion on which this matter was put to the people of this country—was on the

385
initiative of a Labour government and it followed renegotiation of the treaty. That was a quite different matter from the original decision of a Conservative government to make this major constitutional change without a referendum.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, with the leave of the House—
Noble Lords: No! Shame!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was attempting to intervene.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, if the Minister's Answer is taken at face value—in particular his reference to the constitutional issue lying in the pooling of economic sovereignty—and if the Prime Minister said that the referendum was necessary because there was a constitutional issue, why are we not to have a referendum on the constitutional convention and the proposals which will result in the pooling of sovereignty in a whole range of areas?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it was specifically denied that the Prime Minister said we needed a referendum because of the constitutional issue. We have undertaken to consult the people of this country in a referendum on EMU because it is a matter of the most profound economic importance. There is no constitutional barrier, if indeed the evidence is clear and unambiguous that it is in our economic interest.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, are we having a referendum on the euro because it is not a constitutional issue and being denied one on the convention because it is a constitutional issue?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper is not about the convention. I shall leave it to my noble friend Lady Symons to continue to respond, as effectively as she does, on this matter. But neither of the statements the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, makes is true. Nothing has changed. We have been saying the same thing—I have been boring this House on the same subject using the same words for six years.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that relations between political and economic power partake of the character of a seesaw? Does he further agree that a seesaw does not work when it is permanently down at one end? Does he therefore agree that the increasing concentration of economic power in large units creates a case for political power equally to be concentrated in large units, or else find it is unable to compete?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a gross oversimplification of the relationship. The political and economic aspects of any issue are much more complicated than that of a children's playground.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, when the former Chancellor of Germany, the greatly respected Helmut Kohl, said repeatedly that monetary union will work only with full political union, was that also a gross oversimplification, or was he speaking the truth which the British people understand very well?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not responsible for what the former Chancellor of Germany said.

Press Behaviour
3.22 p.m.
Lord McNallyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reconsider their decision not to introduce legislation to outlaw behaviour by the press which undermines the judicial process.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government see no reason to change their decision not to introduce legislation to outlaw payments to witnesses in criminal cases. We did not legislate because on 19th March this year the Press Complaints Commission strengthened its code of practice absolutely to ban payments to witnesses in active proceedings. It also for the first time prohibited payments when proceedings were likely and foreseeable, unless it could be demonstrated that they were in the public interest.
However, the PCC and other media organisations are in no doubt that the Government will legislate should the strengthened code be abused. To our knowledge, there have been no payments to witnesses since 19th March.
Lord McNally: My Lords, is the Minister aware that opinion as diverse as that of the editor of the Guardian and Mr Andrew Neil has in the past week suggested that the Press Complaints Commission holds all the terror of a toothless poodle as regards the users of its code? Does he really believe that we shall see from the press the behaviour to which he has referred unless the PCC is audited and assessed by the Office of Communications to ensure that it is a proper regulator, properly transparent, properly independent and thus able to perform the duties expected of it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have already rejected a suggestion that I should answer to this House for the statements of Helmut Kohl. I am particularly happy to say that I am not responsible to this House for the statements of Mr Alan Rusbridger and Mr Andrew Neil. But the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is quite at liberty to raise such matters at their appropriate

387
place in the Communications Bill. I hope he will agree that the Government's view is clear in the Answer that I have given.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Press Complaints Commission has bark but no bite? As the Communications Bill is going through the House, will he consider giving the PCC the power to levy fines on those members of the press who do not follow the code? In matters of self-regulation, fines are accepted by the Government. The body Exodus, which regulates part of the telephony industry, has the right to issue fines and it has issued fines of £1 million. As Exodus has bite as well as bark, why should not the PCC have the same powers?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Baker, has not been following the proceedings in the Courts Bill, which has left this House and is about to go into Committee in another place. Clause 93 of that Bill provides for the possibility of a third party court order in the case of serious misconduct. That is not yet in force. I do not know whether it would be applicable to particular cases recently before the courts, but the Government are enacting that legislation in order to give bite to the courts in pursuing serious misconduct.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, does the Minister agree that as regards payments to witnesses the regulation of the broadcast media is tougher than that of the print media? Does he further agree that that is not as it should be?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, again, it is possible to raise that matter in the context of the Communications Bill. There is a difference between broadcast media and print media. We have a free press; anyone can start a newspaper in this country—if they have enough money—and we preserve that free press very jealously indeed. One of the protectors of a free press is effective self-regulation.
We have made it very clear to the Press Complaints Commission that if its strengthened code of conduct is not adhered to, we are prepared to undertake legislation. Broadcast media are regulated in a different way by licensing.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, does my noble friend—
Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind—
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I believe that it is the turn of this side.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is the turn of my noble friend Lord Hoyle.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the problems is the composition of the
388
Press Complaints Commission in that editors of newspapers are judging the actions of their colleagues? Should not the PCC be completely independent?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are lay-members on the Press Complaints Commission. My belief is that they are a majority of the members and the chairman is a distinguished layman.
Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind that an extensive Criminal Justice Bill is coming before the House, with its Second Reading on Monday, would it not be wise for the Government during its Committee stage to put forward a fresh, enlarged definition of "contempt of court" so that the matters complained of by noble Lords can be dealt with?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a matter for those who take part in debates on the Criminal Justice Bill. However, I should point out that the provision in Clause 93 of the Courts Bill, to which I referred, does not involve any extension of the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Indeed, the prohibition on payments to witnesses in a case when proceedings are active is wholly compatible with the strict liability rule in the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
Lord McNally: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the freedom of the press. Does he accept that those of us critical of the performance of the Press Complaints Commission have just as much interest in seeing a free press as anyone else? Furthermore, did he notice the results of research from the University of Cardiff, showing that 10 per cent of the public believe what they read in our tabloid newspapers against 70 per cent who believe what they hear on broadcast news? Broadcast news has strict regulations about balance, truth and accuracy while the press does not. Does the Minister not believe that a press held in contempt by the general public is in danger of losing its freedom?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have never doubted, and would not think to doubt, the sincerity of those who take a different view from the Government on this matter. Clearly, there are different interpretations of the best way to achieve freedom of the press.
I am not clear from the subsequent question of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, whether he takes the view that there should he an objective of impartiality on individual newspapers as there is on individual broadcast channels. To start to say that individual newspapers should be impartial is, as I think I said in proceedings on the Communications Bill, a wholly new view of the relationship between the Government and the press. I would suggest that it is a much more interventionist view and one which puts at risk the freedom of the press in this country. I hold that view as sincerely as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, holds his views.

Mental Incapacity
3.31 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on any draft Mental Incapacity Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown, and that the Committee should report on the draft Bill by the end of October 2003.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Civil Contingencies
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on any draft Civil Contingencies Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown, and that the Committee should report on the draft Bill by the end of October 2003.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Congo
3.32 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made this afternoon in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister for the Armed Forces.
"With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on a British contribution to a multinational force for the Democratic Republic of Congo. I would also advise the House that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence is attending a NATO Defence Ministers' meeting in Brussels, which is why he is unable to be present for this Statement.
"The House will be aware of the serious situation in the Ituri province in the Democratic Republic of Congo, particularly in and around the town of Bunia. There has been a resurgence of fighting, particularlybetween Hema and Lendu militia, and tens of thousands of people have fled from their homes.
"Some of these are in refugee camps around Bunia, others are scattered in the surrounding countryside. There is a risk that renewed violence and disease could lead to many deaths.
390
"The UK is wholly committed to supporting the United Nations peacekeeping effort in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In Ituri province and elsewhere good work has been done. But United Nations troops are faced with a new situation with which they do not have the numbers to deal.
"Recognising this, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan requested the creation of a multinational force to stabilise Bunia. UN Security Council Resolution 1484, passed on 30th May, provides the mandate for the force and on 5th June, the EU decided that the operation would be under European defence and security policy auspices.
"As framework nation, France will provide the military commander and the majority of the force. A number of EU member states and non-EU nations are also likely to contribute. We expect the EU Council of Ministers to agree today formally to launch the operation—the first EU-led operation outside Europe.
"I can now tell the House how the United Kingdom intends to contribute to this EU-led force. We have offered to provide an engineer detachment and Hercules transport aircraft to help deploy the multinational force. The exact numbers of personnel needed will not be known until we have completed further detailed analysis of the engineering tasks required in Bunia.
"Bearing in mind the importance of co-ordination between the United Nations and the multinational force and to assist with planning. we will also provide five staff officers to the force headquarters and a liaison officer to work with the United Nations.
"I know that many right honourable and honourable Members are concerned that our Armed Forces have too many commitments. I understand that concern. But I can assure the House that this is a modest, realistic and sustainable deployment.
"But in making this commitment, we are clear that there can be no military solution to the problems in the region. The multinational force is an interim measure, deployed to help the United Nations with a limited and short-term mandate and will begin to withdraw when UN reinforcements arrive later in the summer.
"We hope that this force will help stabilise Ituri province. We hope that it will assist the wider discussions in Kinshasa on the establishment of a transitional national government. We call on all parties in Ituri, Kinshasa and the surrounding region to play a full part in achieving peace and stability in the region.
"I am pleased that the EU has responded quickly and decisively to the situation in Bunia. It is exactly how we envisaged the EU's security and defence policy developing as the practical expression of the common foreign and security policy.
"The United Kingdom takes its commitments to global security seriously. This operation fits into our own objectives in the region, including support for

391
the peace process in the Democratic Republic of Congo. I trust the House will recognise that through this contribution we are taking practical steps to help resolve a difficult situation. I commend it to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.36 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement from another place. We support intervention by the international community in order to stem the bloodshed and bring peace to this most destabilised area. However, why has it been decided to involve the United Kingdom now when we already have so many international commitments and all our troops are in desperate need of rest and further training?
The force will consist, as we have heard, of an engineer detachment, six staff officers and Hercules transport aircraft. The Statement says that the exact numbers of personnel needed is not yet known, but surely the Ministry of Defence must have some planning figure in mind. It would be helpful to have been told that today.
Realistically, will this small number of personnel make any difference? What will it achieve? Surely, there are other countries that could send a similar force. Instead, once again, our tired Army is called upon, leading to yet more separation for the families. It is the Royal Engineers who will be deployed, a corps which has already suffered an inordinate amount of separation recently, and their families are fed up with it. All countries within Europe have military engineers and staff officers; why could they not be used for this operation?
This deployment raises many questions about the assurances given to Parliament as to how NATO would always be given first refusal in relation to military operations, and, in addition, would always have a role in planning EU operations. We should make no mistake: this is an EU-led military operation, small but complex, which will put our servicemen's lives once again at risk. Given the Government's commitment to NATO, and its proven and tested abilities to plan and command operations of this kind, why did we not discuss the matter with NATO and press it to lead the operation? An untried and untested EU operation of a complex nature is clearly more risky. Further, it would appear that the EU is acting unilaterally in this case.
Perhaps it is worth drawing to your Lordships' attention a report of a French military briefing paper. It described this operation as,
"politically and militarily high risk, very sensitive and complex",
and reported that the current deployment of some 1,400 troops will have negligible impact on the tribal conflict.
Will the Minister say what is the military mission for this force and under whose command the British contingent will serve? What are the benchmarks for success and what are the major risks? Does he agree that a token force of some 1,400 troops will make little impact in a country the size of Europe? How can the
392
force be protected? What humanitarian aid will be available? Finally, what are the provisions for reinforcement and what are the means for extracting the force in an emergency?
3.40 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I, too, welcome the Statement. However, in a different vein from the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, I do riot believe that NATO would look at the operation and would be surprised if the Americans have even considered committing their forces to Africa. This is a humanitarian disaster that needs prompt action. It is to be welcomed that this is the first EU-led operation outside Europe. On that basis, it would be almost unacceptable for British forces not to be involved in such an operation, even on such a small scale.
The numbers should be put in context. A small force is being sent out, but the case of Sierra Leone shows how a few British troops can make a significant difference.
One of our areas of concern is that the operation is moving between the two areas of peacekeeping and peacemaking. It seems that, in a tribal conflict, which is so anarchic, it will be very difficult to stick to an envisaged time frame. However, I am sure that the Bangladeshi troops that will make up the next UN contingent will do their best to bring the situation under control. It should be remembered that the Bangladeshi troops did remarkable work in Sierra Leone. Their professionalism is to be noted.
We welcome this decision. We understand the associated risks and dangers. Many Members of this House have often talked about the need for intervention in Africa, especially in the Great Lakes region, therefore it would be unacceptable for us not to take part. I do not believe that it will be a short-term commitment; however, it is one that we must make.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Bach: I am grateful to both noble Lords for their remarks and, in particular, their support for the Government's stance in what has not been an easy decision, given all the circumstances. We are convinced that we are right to do what we are doing.
The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, asked a number of questions and made several comments. He asked the reasonable question whether we could be more precise about numbers at this stage. Our current plans are for up to one Royal Engineers squadron. The noble Lord will know that that implies up to 100 men, but it could be fewer than that. The noble Lord will also know, better than I, from his experience, that neither the Government nor I want to be held to that precise figure. I am trying to help the House as best I can.
The noble Lord also asked what the mission was. I can do no better than to answer by quoting from Security Council Resolution 1484, which I referred to in the Statement. It authorises,
"the deployment until 1 September 2003"—
the date is important—

393
"of an Interim Emergency Multinational Force in Bunia in close coordination with MONUC, in particular its contingent currently deployed in the town, to contribute to the stabilization of the security conditions and the improvement of the humanitarian situation in Bunia, to ensure the protection of the airport, the internally displaced persons in the camps in Bunia and, if the situation requires it, to contribute to the safety of the civilian population, United Nations personnel and the humanitarian presence in the town".
That seems to answer the question about the mission.
The noble Lord asked, fairly, why this was not a NATO-led operation. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, dealt well, if I may say so, with that point. NATO, if it had wished, could have taken on the operation. That did not happen. The ESDP enables the European Union to plan, and, where NATO as a whole is not engaged, conduct crisis-management operations. NATO as a whole is not engaged in the DRC, nor need it be. It has never been envisaged that NATO has refusal over national or ESDP operations.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, made a good point about the dangers involved in this enterprise. He will know that the United Nations has asked for the force to be set up under Chapter VII. That means that the rules of engagement will be more robust than the existing Chapter VI rules under which MONUC operates at present.
I would have hoped that the reason why the United Kingdom is taking part would be clear to this House and the country. Our Armed Forces are among the very best in the world and have demonstrated that they can undertake a wide variety of commitments anywhere in the world. Our extensive peacekeeping operational experience means that our Armed Forces will be able to make a unique and highly positive contribution to the force.
The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, is right that we have asked a huge amount of our Armed Forces and their families recently. We acknowledge and accept that. But we would not be sending even this small force if we did not think that it was manageable.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, bearing in mind that this is as yet a small force, what costs are likely to be involved and where will those costs fall? Will they be found from the Ministry of Defence's budget or will additional resources be made available to it?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the overall cost of the contribution remains to be finally determined. All United Kingdom costs will be borne by the cross-departmental African conflict prevention fund. The UK, with other member states, will contribute to the costs of the deployed multinational force headquarters and what is described as common use infrastructure. We believe that that cost will be around £800,000 to £900,000. I hope that that answers the noble and gallant Lord's question.
Lord Biffen: My Lords, the force being dispatched is relatively small in number. But, matched against the
394
savagery of the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo, it clearly indicates that we may be at the beginning of an increasingly difficult and fraught process. In those circumstances, I should like to enquire further about the rules of engagement. I realise that, naturally enough, there is reticence about discussing the rules of engagement. The Minister has indicated that one United Nations chapter has been chosen over another. Who will authorise the rules of engagement for the British forces? Can the Minister give us a little more assurance on that point in view of the base savagery of the conflict that is now developing?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. It is a dangerous situation in which we are sending our troops. But there will be troops from other countries there, too. I remind the House that the MONUC UN force is already in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and some of those troops are already in Ituri province. The numbers referred to in the Statement will be added to them.
I cannot say much more about the rules of engagement, save that it will he UK Ministers, on advice, who will set them out in detail. The rules of engagement will relate to Chapter VII rather than Chapter VI. I hope that it is some comfort to him, at least, that that means that they are a good deal more robust. Of course the protection of our own forces is paramount.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us breathed a great sigh of relief when we read that the EU force would he going to the eastern Congo? On the question of protocol, in this tragic situation, there is no more reason why it should be prima facie necessary for it to be a NATO force than it would be if Americans troops were doing something analogous in Guatemala or Colombia. Does my noble friend not agree that, given the extreme savagery in the eastern Congo—I echo the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Biffen—as the Prime Minister said a couple of years ago, we now have no alternative but to be involved in Europe? We cannot stand by on the other side of the road. So the rules of engagement are stronger than those of the UN, are they not? We will not allow ourselves to be in a situation such as Srebrenica. As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, implied, this engagement will probably have to continue and we cannot on 1st September allow the Bangladeshis to enter only on the previous rules of engagement under an earlier chapter of the United Nations charter.
Finally, will my noble friend confirm that the whole of Europe—here, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Vivian—must pull its weight in such operations because given the way in which the world is developing there will be many more such operations?
Lord Bach: My Lords, my noble friend will forgive me if I do not go down the road of comparing a NATO with an EU force. Both have their place. What we are doing is in absolute accordance with what has always

395
been said about ESDP. What really matters is that the UN mandate comes from the UN to ensure that the international community will do something to relieve the situation in central Africa to help lead to a peaceful solution. Much good work has been done politically during the past months and years to try to restore the Democratic Republic of Congo to a better state. The important thing is that the force is sent in to try to contribute to that.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, the Minister stressed that this is a European Union force. Other than France and the United Kingdom, what real contribution has been made by each of the other 13 member nations of the European Union?
Lord Bach: My Lords, it is too early to answer the noble Lord accurately—or at all. What is important is that other countries who are not members of the European Union may well also contribute to the force. It is not limited to EU members. Those who are willing to help in one way or another will he extremely welcome, from wherever they come.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that many of us are sad that, so frequently in recent years, we have regretted mass killing and genocide after it has happened and wished that effective action had been taken in time, and that analysis has often demonstrated that a relatively small intervention can have disproportionately positive results? Does he further accept that many of us will be wishing British servicemen and women involved all success? We shall he thinking of them and their families during a difficult and demanding assignment.
However, can he assure the House about one point? He emphasised that there is a United Nations mandate and that this is a European Union first effort, in terms of a European Union-led force. He has also spoken of the need for liaison with the United Nations. Can he make it absolutely clear that that is not only a United Nations mandate but that accountability remains to the Security Council, not to the European Union, for what is being undertaken and achieved?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his keen support of what we are doing. Of course this is a United Nations mandate and of course the United Nations will be ultimately responsible for ensuring that the mandate is carried out satisfactorily. The United Kingdom and other member states will exercise their political direction and strategic control, not from Paris, but from the EU Political and Security Committee, which consists of ambassadors from each of the member states. The operation commander will he answerable to that EU committee.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I have experience of how these things work for the UN in the Congo. I should like to get something clear. The Minister has 'reassured me by saying that, although the operational headquarters will be in Paris, the decisions will be made in Brussels, in the committee.
396
However, I noticed that it is the Council of the EU that will authorise the rules of engagement. That is my first question.
My second question concerns the chain of command. Generally speaking, when things happen in a crisis such as the Congo, decisions need to be made. We cannot run a war by committee. In the past, if people rang up the UN after five o'clock in the evening, they were not answered. So it is necessary to know exactly where responsibility lies. The United Nations document states that they will be reporting to the Secretary General. This document says that they will be reporting to the EU. When it is an operational decision, where do commanders go?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I acknowledge the great experience of the noble Baroness in this troubled field over many years. I shall do my best to answer. On rules of engagement, as I understand it and am advised, British Ministers will in the end decide under what rules of engagement British soldiers behave. On the chain of command, it is right to say that there will be a French commander of the operation. ft is suggested that, on the ground, there will be a British lieutenant-colonel in charge of the engineers to whom I referred, with a French brigadier above him.
As to where decisions will be made, the political decisions will be made in Brussels; the operational decisions will be made in Paris. But it is important to note that we shall also have British Army officers in Paris to advise and assist in the operational field.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister tell us more about Chapter VII? I understand that he prefers it to Chapter VI. Does it mean that the commander on the spot can, when appalling situations arise, take the decision to act with force?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I want to be cautious in what I say about that aspect. Chapter VII is much more concerned with peace enforcement than the rather less robust peacekeeping that applies under Chapter VI. I have no doubt that the commander on the ground will, when it comes to it, take the decisions necessary to allow those serving under him to protect themselves in the best way. The answer to the noble Lord's question is yes.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, the Minister may find it odd that I should question the number of the Royal Engineers. To say that it will be 100, even with up-to-date equipment and the versatility of the engineers, is not an accurate figure. In the Congo, at least a percentage of those engineers will have to be guarding those who are working when we get down to the basic practicalities. So 100 engineers will not be working on the many tasks.
The Minister may be surprised to hear me say this, but we require more engineers. That should he carefully considered. From the question posed by the noble Baroness, I sense that there are quite a lot of chiefs who are fairly well spaced out. Will they talk to each other after five o'clock or when the sun goes

397
down? I should carefully consider the first operation of the European Union command structure because it affects the lives, security and safety of our troops.
The Minister may not agree with me, but I get a whiff that that is definitely a little cook-up between the President of France and the Prime Minister to make friends again. However serious the work required in the Congo—I agree with noble Lords who spoke for it—one wants to be clear about the political and operational aims. It is a tricky part of Africa, and I have some experience of it.
Lord Bach: I pay tribute to the noble Viscount's experience, but I must disagree with him when he suggests that there is a whiff of a cook-up between the leaders of Britain and France in order to make friends. There must be easier ways of making friends than by sending troops to the Democratic Republic of Congo. We have always been friends with France. We disagreed fundamentally with the attitude the French took a few months ago on Iraq in the same way as we disagreed fundamentally even with certain Members of the House who took a different view, but we are still friends with them. The relationship between Britain and France is complex and long-standing, but it is a relationship of friends and allies. I hope that the noble Viscount will not maintain that it is some kind of cook-up.
We are doing this because we think that it is the right thing to do. The noble Viscount is right to point out that there are dangers inherent in it, as there are in any military matters. He will know that well. The EU force has already shown in Macedonia that it can operate sensibly and properly. The noble Viscount will know that too.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I understood the Minister to say that the terms of engagement for the British troops who will be part of the force are a matter for British Ministers to decide. However, there will be forces there from several nations. Will the terms of engagement for each be a matter for their own government? If so, will there not be many different terms of engagement? Is that really being contemplated?
Lord Bach: My Lords, it is a Chapter VII operation, which gives a good clue as to what the rules of engagement will be for all those who are sent out, from whatever country. In the ultimate analysis, it will be for British Ministers to decide what the detailed rules of engagement should be for British troops. I do not think that, in the end, there will be much difference between the rules of engagement that apply for British troops and those that apply to those from other countries.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, would it not be unthinkable for the Government—or any other British government—to refuse such a request from the United Nations? Does my noble friend accept that there is anxiety among those of us who watched Europe call
398
for military action in the former Yugoslavia and then refrain from finding soldiers with the combat capacity to effect those political wishes?
Will my noble friend, when it is convenient, provide a list of the numbers of personnel provided by each EU member state? We could assess whether the member states that have called so vigorously for the second pillar, while providing little capacity to give meaning to it, have been as good at bearing the load as they have been at looking for the loot?
Lord Bach: My Lords, with regard to whether we would have no hesitation in reacting to such a request, I must caution my noble friend. We looked carefully to see whether it was appropriate for us to assist in this way. We rightly decided that we would do so.
If my noble friend is saying that the military capabilities of members of the EU are not what they ought to be and that several countries should make greater efforts to make sure that those capabilities come up to scratch, I would agree wholeheartedly. The two countries that, perhaps, have the best capability and spend the money necessary to obtain it are the United Kingdom and France.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, can the Minister say more about the Royal Air Force commitment in this important operation? I think he mentioned a figure of 30 aircraft. Can he say how many personnel will be required to service the aircraft? Who will be responsible for their safety on the ground in the Congo?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I hope that I did not say 30 aircraft. I would have been misleading the House if I had. A number of CJ-130 transport aircraft will be used—not 30. They will be properly manned, but there will not be as many as 30.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I strongly support the intervention. In fact, I would like to see a larger intervention by the European Union to back up what is already going on in the peace process, which the noble Lord mentioned. Can the Minister confirm that the African forces—mainly Ugandan and Rwandan—that have been in the region will still be onside and will commit their own forces in the future? We should bear it in mind that the neighbouring Kivu region is also unstable.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I know that the noble Earl has huge experience and knowledge of that part of Africa. The political situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo and in the neighbouring countries is among the most complicated I have come across in my brief time at the Dispatch Box.
We expect that all other countries in the Great Lakes area will behave with responsibility and good sense in assisting the Democratic Republic of Congo to achieve successful government as soon as possible. That, of course, includes the two countries to which the noble Earl referred. In that regard I know that my noble

399
friend the Secretary of State for International Development spoke this morning to the president of Rwanda about these matters.

Water Bill [H.L.]
4.6 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 10 [Orders under section 33 of the WRA, etc]:
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 18:
Page 13, line 33, leave out from "section" to end of line 34.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 18, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 20.
In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, said of the amendment:
"We welcome the way in which the amendment deals with issues that we would like to consider … We shall take the amendment away and look at it".—[Official Report, 1/4/03; col. GC 118.]
We tabled this amendment to see what that consideration was. It may be that Amendment No. 19 was the result of that consultation. If that is the case, I will wait for the Minister's reply before I say anything about it, as it is also in the group.
Amendment No. 20 relates to a cause of some puzzlement to us. In Committee, the Minister seemed to suggest that the combination of subsections (5), (6) and (7) in some way allowed flexibility in setting abstraction limits. That is not our reading of the Bill. Subsection (5) appears to say that the Bill may be used to revoke exceptions in exactly the same way as under Section 27A(1) of the Water Resources Act 1991, except in situations covered by subsection (6) of this Bill. Subsection (6) says that changes to the exception quantities may only be greater than 20 cubic metres. That is one interpretation. Have we misread it? Does it mean that orders to be revoked may be only for amounts greater than 20 cubic metres? Subsection (7) appears to state that having set things up under subsection (5) above, Section 27A(1) of the Water Resources Act may be used to overturn the whole lot. This is something of a roundabout and we should like to have it clarified. That is why we have tabled the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, Amendment No. 19, standing in my name in this group, is an attempt to meet the points raised by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, when he moved his amendment in Committee. My amendment attempts to have the same effect of allowing a more flexible approach to the removal of exception orders in so far as they relate to underground strata. I therefore hope that we can focus on my amendment. I think that I can partly clarify the matter, but I am starting at the other end of logic from that of the noble Lord.
In essence, Clause 10 provides for an order to be made that revokes existing exemption orders made under Section 33 of the Water Resources Act. Those exemption orders currently disapply the licensing
400
system to defined sources of supply. Revoking an exemption order will introduce the licensing system to the previously exempted source and the standard threshold of 20 cubic metres per day for licence control. If that threshold is considered too low for the source concerned, the revoking order can simultaneously substitute a higher one.
Once the original exemption order has itself been revoked by the order under this clause, there is no further opportunity to use the powers of this clause as there is no longer an exemption order to revoke. So any further change to the exemption order could then be made only under the new arrangements provided for in this new Section 27A being introduced by Clause 6. The amendment seeks to enable a subsequent variation of the threshold to be made under Clause 10, but that would not work—for the consequential logic which I hope that I have explained.
It says in my brief, "With this clarification"—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I hope that the logic of that explanation is followed by the noble Lord. However, there is a further complication in relation to Clause 10. We may need to bring forward further amendments to apply the provisions of the Water Resources Act to this clause, and possibly other clauses, in order to ensure that the whole sequence of events ties together. If the noble Lord would like that in writing before Third Reading, I think it might be appropriate for us all.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, it seems to me that the logic is about as clear as the route through the Hampton Court maze. Once again, we seem to have provoked some perhaps what in time will be useful thinking and re-thinking about exactly what is going on here. A written explanation would certainly help before Third Reading. Obviously, if the Government are to bring forward further amendments in order to clarify the situation, my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, in moving his original amendment, has served the House well. We shall now obtain some real clarification which we do not appear to have achieved quite yet. But I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whittymoved Amendment No. 19:
Page 13, line 34, at end insert "or any other way"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, despite the fact that we have not yet obtained total clarity, it would be better to insert this amendment. Thus, the subsequent correspondence can relate to the text as at least partially moved in the direction I think we all want. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]

401
4.15 p.m.
Clause 15 [General consideration of licence applications]:
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 21:
Page 19, line 26, at end insert—
"( ) In subsection (3), after paragraph (b) there is inserted—
"(c) the probable funding period required to finance the construction of engineering facilities necessary to the supply, storage or processing of the water that is the subject of the licence applied for"."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 21 is an innocuous little amendment which I hope that the Government might consider favourably. I say that it is innocuous, but we tabled a fairly innocent amendment for Grand Committee to consider and we had very robust debate on the subject. The Government thought that perhaps the amendment was too forcing. This amendment certainly is not—or is less forcing anyway.
I have a problem with what I would term the psychology of this Bill. Anyone who might read this Bill in an attempt to find out what the rationale is behind the licensing process for the abstraction of water would come across the regime set out on the face of the Bill, which gives the clear impression that water abstraction licences would last for 12 years and could then cease. That is what appears in the Bill. Those of us who have had the joy of sitting through Grand Committee and are participating today know that that is not the true situation. If one delves through all the previous legislation and the explanations thereof and takes the trouble to read Hansard, we know that licences might be granted for longer periods.
Consider the position of, for example, a banker who has to consider the funding of a major water project. What will he do? He will look at this Bill—that is, the latest legislation that deals with the subject. We all know that investment in the water industry is on the whole large-scale, long-term and long-life. Investment periods will match that. One has only to consider large reservoirs, as we were this morning: many of the main reservoirs that supply this country's water were built more than one century ago. One has only to consider water mains: the London ring main was recently installed, but I am sure that it is hoped that it will have a life at least as great as that of the London sewers which were installed 150 years ago. Consider even more local mains or supply pipes to houses: the old one inch gas and water connections installed 100 years ago are still going strong. Drains and sewers, of course, are the same, although they are not directly related.
My point is that all of these things, and housing, too, are long-life projects and have long funding periods. Therefore, it would be perfectly reasonable for them to be funded over a similarly long period. But that banker, looking at the latest legislation, would say, "Hey, I have no security in the continuity of use of this particular asset. It could lose its useful life after 12 years because the licence might be withdrawn". As I have said, we know that that is not the case, and after diligent research the banker may find that out. Furthermore, the applicant for the investment funding
402
would no doubt make the reality perfectly plain. However, it would be so much simpler if something giving a hint of the real position was included on the face of the Bill.
So we come back to my innocuous little amendment. It simply requires that,
"the probable funding period required to finance the construction of engineering facilities necessary to the supply, storage or processing of the water that is the subject of the licence applied for",
be a matter that is taken into account in the granting of the licence. I would not say that the phrase is strong enough, but I propose it on the basis that we are asking the Government to accept a form of words in an area where they have proved reluctant to acknowledge, on the face of the Bill, that there is a problem. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has spoken to his amendment with reason and moderation. He alluded to a problem which was discussed at some length in Grand Committee. It is one of two or three amendments on a similar matter, one of which we shall come to shortly dealing with a presumption of renewal of licences. The difficulty indicated by the noble Lord was well exemplified by his reference to a banker considering the matter. Although the hidden meaning of the Bill—when he reads Hansard and takes into account ministerial assurances, guidance, what is said by the Environment Agency and so forth—may assist the banker in coming to the view that the licence will be available for a longer period, on the face of it the capital expenditure which the banker may be asked for will not be recovered for a much longer period than, say, 12 years.
However, it is not just the banker and the water company who will be concerned about getting their money back. Who is the beneficiary of the infrastructure and capital expenditure here? It is the consumer, in particular the consumer of the future, who, we all know, needs an adequate supply of water. Consumers need it not only today; they need a firm assurance for the future. At the moment I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that the Government have been hesitant about this. Readers of the Bill and later the Act will be concerned that there is not enough clarity as regards how long the licences will last or whether there is a presumption of renewal. Therefore water companies will hesitate to put down money and the consumer may be left uncertain about his future supplies of water. For those reasons I share the doubts that have been expressed. I agree with the thinking behind this amendment and the similar amendments to be discussed shortly.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, I support this amendment, which overlaps with an amendment I shall move later. The presumption that, ultimately, the Bill must serve both suppliers and consumers and create the stability necessary for the

403
relationship to last over the coming decades—not simply years—is a good presumption to put on the face of the Bill. For that reason, I support the amendment.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, although I have already intervened in the debate, I have not yet declared my interest as a director of a water company. I did not think it necessary to do so when I was speaking on more general points. I strongly support my noble friend in his amendment. The reality is that the investment required in facilities for the supply and treatment of water is such that it can be approached in two ways. It can be done in the good old World War Two manner of "make do and mend", or it can be done by ensuring that the investment will last for generations to come.
When water supplies first became widespread in the United Kingdom, as we all know from the Victorian pipework still in place, it was done on the basis of a very robust investment intended to last for ages. If companies are given no guarantee that they will be able to recoup their investment, they have two ways of approaching it. As I said, one is the policy of make do and mend, which not for one moment do I think any sane water company would choose. The other approach is to load the current customer with the cost of the investment because the payback period would then be much shorter than it would have been if there was a presumption that the licence would be renewed or a reasonable time-scale for the payback could be guaranteed.
The present provisions could result in a short-sighted way of dealing with these serious issues. Given the long-term nature of this business investment, it should be noted that no other industry with long-term investment interests has a threat hanging over it that the whole operation could grind to a halt on the suspension of a licence. I support my noble friend's amendment.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and I have had a common interest in most of the amendments moved so far, so I am particularly sorry to have to tell him that, on this amendment, I cannot support him.
I take the point just made by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, but we can look at the reverse of that coin and point out that, in many ways, the investment for a water company is safer than that faced by many businesses, whether they be in retail or manufacturing. I say that because, with the exception of the duration of the licence, the water company operates in a virtual monopoly position.
I accept the worries expressed about the renewal of licences, but after debating these matters in Grand Committee and listening to the reasoning behind how the Environment Agency is to regard the renewal of licences, I feel that the assurances we were given are satisfactory. So I am not in favour of giving any further assurance here when half of the thrust of the
404
Bill is to assure the future balance between the needs of the environment, investment and social need. In that regard, the Bill has struck the right balance already.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure whether this amendment is innocuous or if it would be effective in achieving what the noble Lord seeks. It would require the Environment Agency, in addition to its other duties in determining a licence application, to have specific regard to the funding period for any engineering, storage or processing facilities.
If the amendment aims to ensure that the time limit of the licence is linked to such considerations, then it would not achieve that aim. The intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, suggested that it would be achieved in his later amendments. Of itself it would not do so, but it would give funding issues a specific status to which the agency would have to have regard when it determines a licence. Putting such a provision on the face of the Bill, it would raise the funding issue above other matters which the agency must consider, including those relating to the water company and its ongoing costings and others relating to the effect on abstractors, consumers and so forth.
While obviously it is right that the agency should consider the funding issue among other matters, we would not want it to be constrained in the way proposed in the amendment. The agency already has to have regard to the reasonable requirements of the applicant, who can submit a business case to support consideration of the desired time limit of the licence. The agency can already consider such issues, including funding issues, and should do so where they form part of a business case. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, implied, it should not do so over and above other considerations. There is a balance to be struck and placing greater emphasis on this one dimension would unbalance the approach.
As regards how the Environment Agency considers the time-limiting of licences, it has guidelines which recognise that longer duration licences may be justified in certain cases, including where the funding consideration is of importance. We believe that the guidelines provide the necessary flexibility to determine the duration of licences in the context of the sustainable management of water resources and investment in those water resources. That is properly a matter for the agency to determine in accordance with its existing duties and responsibilities. In making its decision it has to take into account all considerations and should not place an undue emphasis on funding issues. It should, however, recognise that they are a part of the process.
I do not believe that it would be helpful to put such a consideration on the face of the Bill. It would constrain the agency in taking an all-round decision in relation to an application for a licence.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Borrie and Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, and my noble friend Lady O'Cathain for

405
their support. I am disappointed that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, feels that we do not need to put this requirement on the face of the Bill.
But the demand for water has to be met. The enormous increases in housing that are being discussed will have to be supplied. They will not be supplied out of the existing infrastructure and water systems in the South East. I am not saying that we are short of water because we are not—we use a very small proportion of the available water in this country—but we do not have adequate conservation to guarantee supplies. It is that issue which lies behind the discussion.
I heard what the Minister said about the guidelines given to the Environment Agency, but they will not be readily available to people in other walks of life. I have no doubt that we shall be able to get a copy of them from the Library, but whether banks, financial houses and other such bodies will carry them is entirely another matter. It is very doubtful that they will. It is very doubtful that, when discussing the subject generally, they would necessarily have them drawn to their attention.
I shall consider what the Minister said. We will be discussing later amendments on a similar theme and at some point we may begin to elicit some satisfaction from a reluctant government. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [Protected rights]:
Baroness Byfordmoved Amendment No. 22:
Page 21, line 2, at end insert—
"( ) A protected right that has been unused for four years shall not cease under subsection (4) above if the licence holder can demonstrate that his pattern of abstraction is or has been over a longer cycle."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment relates to those abstractors who, perhaps for reasons of sound agricultural management, operate a crop rotation pattern that demands extra water resource at, say, seven-year intervals. The Bill does not make plain that there will be any presumption of flexibility of approach to the removal of these licence rights.
The agricultural and rural tourism industries have long memories of the damage wrought by the outbreak of foot and mouth and the action—in some cases, the lack of action—taken by Defra. If the renewal of licences is to be a matter for reasoned consideration and a flexible approach, it does no harm to have that reflected in the law. If the true intention is to be rigid and uncaring, then we should change the proposed legislation.
We have received a submission from the National Farmers' Union and I should like to enlarge upon it. We all agree that Amendment No. 22 raises an important point. Abstraction and irrigation is not necessary in every growing season. This might be due to the weather, the crops under production, the rotational cycle or, more seriously, health considerations for the land and the crops.
406
There are many examples of situations where abstraction from surface water is restricted for phytosanitary reasons. These include restrictions for the containment and eradication of notifiable diseases such as potato cyst nematodes—such restrictions are in force on the River Nene—or simply to control the build-up of soil-borne disease such as neck-rot in onions and cavity spot in carrot crops.
The use of an elongated crop cycle promotes a reduction in the use of plant protection products and such a requirement is frequently seen in the supply contracts from multiple retailers. Organic producers, for example, often rely on the fallow period of rotation for the eradication and control of plant pests and diseases. It is clear that where a cropping pattern is influenced by considerations such as these a licence-holder should not be in any danger of the loss of his abstraction rights.
The NFU would also welcome the amendment being extended to take into account future changes in production where there is under-production of crops in response to market considerations.
We had a lengthy debate yesterday on the issue of the countryside. For once I was able to say to the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, who is not in his place, that it was a good debate because it went much wider than agriculture. When we are considering such Bills we must also consider the industries that are directly affected.
In Grand Committee I had the support of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, for which I was grateful, and, although she is not in her place today. the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said:
"I am sure that there is no intention to get in the way of legitimate agricultural rotation, which would simply be nonsensical".—[Official Report, 1/4/03; col. GC142.]
If the Government do not intend this to be a restriction on agriculture, they should accept the amendment. I hope they do. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of Somerset Food Links.
It is clear that even if the Government are not minded to accept this amendment they would be wise to bring forward an amendment along the same lines, as they still have time to do. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, set out the case for the amendment very cogently. It pays regard to the rights and needs of farmers, particularly those pursuing organic production which, of necessity, involves longer cycles.
I support the amendment. I hope that the Government will tell the House either that they will accept it or that they will bring forward a similar amendment at Third Reading.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I hope that both noble Baronesses will be pleased to hear that we accept the underlying general concern expressed in Amendment No. 22, and we wish to give further consideration to the best formulation of a suitable amendment to meet the concerns.

407
In the case of revocation of unused abstraction licences, we have said that we would not expect the agency to make proposals for revocation where non-use was a part of the operational requirement of the abstractor for valid reasons. The automatic cessation of a protected right after four years of non-use for exempt abstractors might be seen as unfair, as the noble Baronesses have recognised, as it would not allow planned non-use to be taken into account. We will therefore bring forward a suitable government amendment to cater for this situation. On that basis, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will be happy to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, in the briefest of time, I thank the Minister. I am delighted, and thank her for agreeing to bring back a suitable government amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 [Form, contents and effect of licences]:
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domermoved Amendment No. 23:
Page 22, line 33, at end insert—
"(5B) All licenses which were hitherto expressed under subsection (5) of section 46 as remaining in force until revoked shall, over a 6 year period beginning on the 15th July 2012, be reissued to state—

(a) the date on which they take effect, and

(b) the date on which they expire.""

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to provide a mechanism for the conversion of permanent licences to time-limited status. In Committee, we said that it was in our view essential to introduce greater flexibility into the licensing system, which is vital if future abstraction management is to take account of such factors as climate change and increasing pressure on water resources.
When such an amendment was moved in Grand Committee, the Minister said that he favoured the conversion of all abstraction licences to time limits but that he would like to achieve this conversion through voluntary means. However, it became apparent, when answering questions about how many permanent licences have been voluntarily converted to time-limited status in the past five years—and I think voluntary conversion only became Government policy from 1999—the Minister replied that he did not know that there were any. In fact, none has been so converted, as was confirmed in answer to a question asked by my noble friend Malcolm Bruce in another place, on 18th July 2002, in column 487 of Hansard.
I do not believe that a voluntary approach gives any incentive for abstractors to convert their licences. A statutory mechanism is therefore necessary, and it is for that reason that I have brought this amendment back on Report. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the amendment seeks to impose a time limit on all permanent licences that will still be extant in July 2012 over a period of six years after that date. For all the reasons the noble Baroness
408
underlined and I underlined in Committee, it will be desirable to move everybody on to a time-limited licence. However, the Government's view, based on legal advice, is that automatic conversion of this sort could have significant human rights implications and also give rise to the potential for substantial compensation costs to be paid by the agency—in effect, by all outstanding and non-time-limited abstractors, theoretically, at least.
The Government have said that we would like to see abstraction licences eventually made subject to a time limit where the cost of doing so is justified. A voluntary, gradualist approach would be preferred; I accept the noble Baroness's indication that there is no voluntary conversion at present, but the Bill's provisions will help to ensure that there is more. The Environment Agency will need to undertake a programme of prioritised conversion of licences, where costs are proportionate to the benefits. It will need to consult on this programme once the Bill becomes law.
There are a number of measures and features of the new system that will encourage such voluntary conversion. For example, the agency will introduce financial incentives to convert, such as differential charging according to licence status. It will be consulting on a new charging scheme in the autumn. Moving to a time-limited licence where at least six years' notice of non-renewal is given will, in future, offer more security, rather than less, than retaining a non-time-limited permanent licence that could potentially be subject to revocation without notice. Removing the right to compensation where a permanent licence causes damage to the environment should also act as an incentive to conversion. Where abstraction under a time-limited licence causes such damage, the agency should, in most circumstances, rightly compensate because it will in effect have been at fault in granting the licence. In those circumstances, there will be some compensation.
If we take the other route, compensation and human rights issues could arise for all those who are converted mandatorily as of July 2012. The compensation in that case could be substantial. A much more gradualist, voluntary and co-operative programme, supported by the measures I have outlined, would be a better approach to this conversion. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will accept that our approach is better than her nuclear option, if I can refer to it in that way, and will be less costly to the Government or the Environment Agency and, potentially, the existing abstractors.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Of course, I do not want to place unnecessary burdens on the public purse by way of compensation. I merely remain concerned that the voluntary mechanism does not seem very effective at the moment regarding the method of conversion. As for the human rights angle, I think I should take this away and discuss it with my noble friend Lord Lester, who has far more experience in

409
that area than I have. The Minister looks excited at that prospect. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domermoved Amendment No. 24:
Page 22, line 33, at end insert—
"(5B) Every licence under this Chapter shall be subject to a duty to use the water abstracted in an efficient manner, so as to further water conservation""
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, there are a number of points in the Bill where we could choose to push for proposals on efficiency. Indeed, we voted on one such amendment this morning, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. There are two amendments to be debated later, one in my name and one a government amendment. So I will not speak to Amendment No. 24 at great length but will listen to the Minister's reply and take it into account when we debate Amendments Nos. 36 and 160. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, anything that encourages the efficient use of water has to be beneficial. To that extent, quite obviously, we would support the amendment if we get no satisfaction eventually as we go through the Bill.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct that we have tabled Amendment No. 160, which would amend the Environment Agency's general duty on water resources to include water efficiency. That would, of itself, have implications for the way in which the Environment Agency dealt with its licences in a more substantial way than adopting the duty on the agency through the water efficiency measures that would be required by the noble Baroness's amendment. Perhaps we can have that discussion when we reach Amendment No. 160. If the noble Baroness is not satisfied at that point, no doubt we can return to it on Third Reading.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domermoved Amendment No. 25:
Page 22, line 35, at end insert—
"(6) The agency may licence a number or variety of activities on the same land-holding, by issuing a whole farm licence when it judges that to be in the interests of good regulation."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we have heard much from the Government during proceedings on this Bill and during debate on the countryside and CAP reform about a move to streamlining regulations. They have referred to whole farm approaches and so on, so I believe that there is some merit in exploring the matter. The Government decided at Committee stage
410
that different licences were still needed for different activities. Exactly when would issuing a whole farm licence make sense?
The amendment would give the Environment Agency power, so that when it judged that it was in the interests of good regulation to issue a whole farm licence, it could do so. Of course, the agency might never judge that that is in the interests of good regulation. However, as we move to one-stop advice for farmers and a system of environmental payments based on whole farm activity, I hope that approach is seen to be a good one. I would not want there to be enshrined in the Bill a necessity for the agency to licence everything in the abstraction and empowerment areas separately, without the power to move on it. I emphasise that the agency would issue a licence only if the agency judged it,
"to be in the interests of good regulation".
I beg to move.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I am a little confused about the last two words of the amendment—"good regulation". As my noble friend said a moment ago, good regulation is the regulation with which the applicant agrees. If the amendment referred to the interests of the community, conservation or good use of water, I would view it with more favour. Regulation should always be good—that should be implicit. We should hear a little more argument in favour of the amendment before we start voting with blanket approval for good regulation.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, of course my noble friend is right that all regulation should be good. However, regulation relating to farmers is regrettably not always applied in the most effective or user-friendly way or with the best outcome. The noble Baroness is right in saying that we would like to move to a whole farm approach. The problem with her amendment is whether one can do that on the unilateral basis of the one dimension of the regulations that applies to farming. The first problem that we have when we develop whole farm approaches to regulation is the definition of a farm. That problem would apply in relation to the application in this case.
As the noble Baroness recognised, in so far as the activity referred to in her amendment relates to the abstraction of water, it is already possible that the agency can grant a licence to the same person. authorising multiple points and purposes of abstraction, provided that it is from the same source of supply. Most farms would be covered by that potential discretion anyway. There is nothing in the application process to prevent a single application from being made for a licence covering applications from all sources of supply. There would be aggregate charging, and no penalty to the licence holder when separate licences needed to be issued, if they were all covered by one application.
In a sense, therefore, the proposal is already a possibility, but one without the total context of the rest of regulation for farmers being covered by a whole

411
farm approach. Therefore, reference specifically to whole farm licences in that context is probably not sensible. We would need to wait until we developed the full programme before it made sense.
There will be other forms of activity where multiple abstraction points and potentially multiple sources would also apply. Therefore, the discretion that already applies to the agency would not be limited to farms, in any case. Large factory and commercial sites might also benefit from that discretion. Therefore, the noble Baroness's amendment is premature, but at some point down the line it could fit in more directly with an overall approach to whole farm planning and regulation.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath. Rereading my amendment, I agree with him that it should have said something more along the lines of,
"when the Environment Agency judges it to be good regulation in the interests of its clients",
or whatever. He is right to point out the sloppy wording.
The Minister's reply was very helpful. He holds out hope that in future the regulations may be more streamlined. He said that licences could be the subject of one application—I presume that he also meant one licence fee. That being the case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Byfordmoved Amendment No. 26:
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause—
"RENEWAL OF LICENCES
After section 46 of the WRA there is inserted —
"46ZA RENEWAL OF LICENCES
(1) Licence renewal will be subject to three tests, namely that

(a) environmental sustainability must not be in question;

(b) the need for the licence is demonstrable;

(c) the water extracted under the licence is being and will be used efficiently and effectively.

(2) If the conditions of subsection (1) above are met, except in exceptional circumstances of extraordinary pressure on water resources in that locality, the licence will be renewed for a minimum of six years.""
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, when the amendment was before the Committee, we had a very full and thorough debate. We have tried to improve the thoughts that were reflected in the discussions that took place, and have come forward with our suggestion of the three tests for the licences, of which the Government apparently approve.
The first test is that,
"environmental sustainability must not be in question".
The second test is that,
"the need for the licence is demonstrable".
The third test is that,
"the water extracted under the licence is being and will be used efficiently and effectively".
As I said, our discussions on the matter were full. They ranged from cols. GC 125 to GC 128 of the Official Report of 1st April 2003, and those who spoke in support of the amendment that I moved then included the noble Lords, Lord Borrie and Lord Howie, and my noble friend Lady O'Cathain. We have considered noble Lords' comments carefully, and hope that the new wording will meet some, if not all, of the points made by the Minister.
The three tests that I mentioned have already been set out by the agency. It is appropriate that they appear as an open commitment in the Bill. The period of six years has been chosen to match the review period stipulated in the European water directive. The get-out clause is an attempt to recognise that we do not control nature on a permanent basis. Water is a most powerful medium, capable of changing its own path without man's assistance. We should not like to have in law a clause that, on the face of it, insisted on renewal in the event of a landslide that blocked a water course or the opening up of an underground channel that dried a water course.
I have had a contribution from the National Farmers Union, which stated its concerns and its support for the amendment. As recently demonstrated by the joint awarding of the Environment Agency's water efficiency award for the agriculture and horticulture sector, sponsored by the NFU, the efficient use of water in those businesses is actively promoted by the NFU and its members. The NFU "Waterwise" campaign encourages farmers and growers to undertake a simple water audit for their holdings and to track down and eliminate sources of inefficient water use and wastage. Farmers are well aware of the benefits for their businesses that can be achieved by effective and efficient use of water.
The amendment is important. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords. I was reminded by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, declaring her interest, that perhaps I should have declared my interest and connection as a non-executive director of a water company. I made that declaration at Second Reading and in Committee, but perhaps it is best practice to declare it at each stage of the Bill.
In a way, the subject of this amendment is part of a theme pursued—but just touched on—in an earlier amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and others. Water companies very strongly need reassurance when they are expected to lay out capital expenditure for vital infrastructure. They want assurance that there will be an adequate period of licence during which they can recover their money. Of course we have had some—I use the word again—assurances of a sort from the Government that if the water company presented a suitable business plan to the Environment Agency, the company might be able to convince the agency that the normal licence length of 12 years should be longer.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, indicated in Grand Committee that the Environment Agency is committed to a presumption of renewal, which is what

413
we are discussing under this amendment. The trouble is that those assurances and statements from either the Minister or the Environment Agency—with due respect to both of them—are not on the face of the Bill and therefore may not satisfy the mythical banker to whom the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred earlier and may not satisfy companies. Consequently, they may not satisfy the needs of future consumers who will want such capital expenditure if adequate supplies are to be assured for the future.
In Grand Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, denied—I put it in perhaps a provocative way, though the noble Lord does not usually need much provocation to be very clear and blunt himself—that there was a presumption against renewal. I think that it is implicit in the Bill as it stands that there is a presumption against renewal. I suppose that that is why I see value in Amendment No. 26, which would introduce a presumption in favour. It would give that magic reassurance which I think is so important.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I have certain reservations about this amendment as well. I believe that the Bill's current provisions for the renewal of licences are adequate. The Bill also provides for an appeals process. My unease may be more to do with the second part of the amendment, which ties the licence renewal period down to a period of six years. We have discussed at length the issue of climate change and various other pressures. I think that the six-year minimum is likely to be used in practice. However, given all the comments about those pressures, I would be very uneasy if, by accepting the amendment, we removed the ability to grant licences for shorter periods should that become appropriate. We should particularly bear in mind that the amendment would, I believe, cover all licences regardless of whether they applied to very large projects or very small ones or to multiple small abstractions that exceeded the licensing threshold. I therefore have reservations about the amendment.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I too have reservations about the amendment. There is not, to answer my noble friend Lord Borrie, a presumption either in this legislation or in practice against renewal. Indeed, the Environment Agency has clearly included a presumption of renewal in its published draft guidance on the time-limiting of licences. So the Environment Agency will operate the system on the presumption of renewal. However, it needs some discretion in that regard. The amendment is seeking to introduce into a well established statutory decision-making process a requirement that, where certain conditions are met, the decision is effectively taken out of the hands of the decision-making bodies.
I am slightly surprised that my noble friend, who has himself been one of those decision-making bodies, can contemplate such a constraint on judgment being made so explicit in primary legislation. Introducing a statutory criterion would tend to predetermine the outcome if the tests in the amendment were met. The
414
general approach to licensing is that there is a presumption for a licence if the conditions are met. That same presumption applies to the renewal of the licence.
There is an appeals process. In essence, the renewal tests—the judgment of the regulator at the point of application for renewal—really should be seen as a quality check that the conditions of the licence are still met; that changes that could not reasonably be foreseen at the time of grant, such as climate change, have been taken into account; and that there is therefore no reason to go against the presumption of renewal.
One of the difficulties with the stipulations in the amendment is that the changes since the granting of the first licence, which may have been some time ago—more than 12 years; we are potentially talking about a rolling programme here—will have been gradual rather than dramatic, particularly in relation to climate change, one would hope. Therefore, different judgments have to be made at different times as to whether the licence terms are still appropriate. So a certain amount of judgment has to be exercised even against an administrative presumption of renewal.
The amendment's effect and implied prescription would tie the hands of the regulator in reaching those judgments. So, with reassurances about how the Environment Agency is approaching this task, I recommend that the House should not accept an amendment that would put on a statutory basis a rigid presumption of renewal.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he look at subsection (2) of the amendment? It clearly states:
"If the conditions of subsection (1) … are met, except in exceptional circumstances of extraordinary pressure on water resources in that locality, the licence will be renewed for a minimum of six years".
So there is a built-in safety valve. I should be grateful if he would comment on that.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my point is that that is a fairly extreme exception. The amendment specifies, "except in exceptional circumstances", whereas changes may have occurred over the whole 12 years since the licence was granted or most recently renewed. "Exceptional circumstances" suggests a sudden and dramatic emergency, whereas looking forward to the next 12 years, the Environment Agency—the regulator—may well judge that the licence conditions should be changed or the licence should not be renewed in its current form. That is why I say that the amendment greatly constrains the judgment of the regulator. The provision which the noble Baroness quoted deals with an extreme example of change which would allow the regulator to behave differently from the presumption. There is a whole range of circumstances where there may be other matters to be taken into consideration when making the judgment on a renewal application.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I follow the Minister's argument but I do not accept it. I thank the noble

415
Lord, Lord Borrie, for his support. I think that people generally—not just water companies, but everyone who uses water, particularly those whom I know well within the farming community—are looking for reassurance. The Minister said that the Environment Agency will operate a presumption that. subject to the requirements, renewal will be granted. However, the Bill does not state that. The Environment Agency is not answerable to anyone. It may be answerable to the Government as it is a government agency, but it is not answerable to this House. I am certainly not happy with the Minister's answer. We shall return to the matter at Third Reading. I hope that the Government will give it further consideration. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwoodmoved Amendment No. 27:
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause—
"COMMENCEMENT AND EXPIRY OF LICENCES
After section 46 of the WRA there is inserted—
"46B COMMENCEMENT AND EXPIRY OF LICENCES
(1) A licence granted under this Chapter to abstract water—

(a) to prevent interference with any mining, quarrying or engineering operations (whether underground or surface); or

(b) to prevent damage to works resulting from such operations ("de-watering abstractions");

shall be stated to take effect and to expire simultaneously with any planning permission or any extension or amendment to any planning permission granted for such mining, quarrying or engineering operations instead of a specific date, or dates, in the licence for the de-watering abstraction itself.
(2) In all other respects, reference in this Chapter to the date on which a licence is stated to take effect and on which it expires, insofar as a licence for de-watering abstractions is concerned, refers to the commencement and expiry dates comprised in any planning permission authorising the mining, quarrying or engineering operations relevant to the de-watering abstraction.""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment No. 27. I wish to take a few moments to make some general remarks which apply to other amendments under my name; that is, Amendments Nos. 28, 32, 183 and 185. Those remarks, if made now, need not be repeated. I give that commitment.
I declare an interest as a non-executive chairman of the Quarry Products Association. I support the general principles of the Bill to maintain quantity and quality of water—who could not? But the amendments under my name relate to the way in which the provisions of the Bill have relevance to the quarrying industry in particular. That is an important point.
A distinction must be drawn between those who use water in the processes of their respective industries and the needs of the quarrying industry to extract water literally in order to keep digging and then to return that water to the aquifer either immediately or after storage at equivalent quality. The point about the quarrying industry is that the water is not lost in either quantity or quality in this process of abstraction.
My initial proposal at Committee stage was to ask for the quarrying industry therefore to be exempted from the type of licensing process envisaged in the Bill. In the light of discussion at that stage and the comments of the Minister, I have returned with this amendment rather than my original amendment. I hope that this amendment can be regarded as both conciliatory and consensual.
Amendment No. 27 seeks to protect the quarrying industry from what I can only view as a potential double hazard; that is, the need for planning permission and a licence to abstract water to run on different timescales. The amendment proposes that the licence and the planning permission should run concurrently with the same expiry date. Why is that important? It is important due to a matter already touched on in earlier amendments—the length of the investment cycle in the quarrying industry. I need not go over the details of that as that matter was covered in earlier discussion.
The Bill, if unamended, would reduce to 12 years the horizon under which significant investment is considered, with a time warning given after six. Let us consider the implications of that. I give a specific example to impress on the House the seriousness which such a use of powers could have, not simply for the quarrying industry. The Torr Quarry near Frome currently supplies virtually all the limestone needs of the South East of England. That is a consequence of geology not of business strategy as that is where the limestone is found. The quarry has been managed with great skill. Investment has been channelled into developing an adequate rail transport infrastructure to ensure that the flow of material to the construction sites of the South East of England that need the material takes place in the most effective and efficient manner.
Such investment in both the quarry and the infrastructure is unrealistic over a short investment timescale—a 12-year period. But what is at issue is the supply of limestone for construction, the huge majority of which occurs in the South East of England. The Minister does not need reminding of the ambitious government plans for construction in that area. That one quarry is pivotal to those plans.
I remind the House, however, that the issue is not simply the use of water and the possible contamination of water—as might arise in other industries—but the dewatering necessary to allow limestone extraction in this case and the return of the water to the aquifer. That is different from the position of some other industries which have an interest in this area which use water and, in so doing, diminish either the quantity or the quality of water returned to the aquifer.
I also remind the House that the measure does not imply an avoidance of proper regulation because planning permissions are subject to a rolling 15 year reaffirmation and regranting. The Environment Agency has a role in that process as a statutory consultee. I believe that proper regulation as proposed in the amendment in the spirit of the Bill can be observed along with the provisions already in place. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I support the amendment. I apologise for not having been present at previous stages of the Bill. I am a civil engineer and I have done some quarrying work in my youth, if one can call it that. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, are very valid.
No one likes quarries. They comprise big holes in the ground and often you cannot see them. Often they last for decades and sometimes more than 100 years. However, as the noble Lord said, people like the products of quarries. They want cheap buildings, roads, railways and harbours. The quarrying industry is a classic case of an industry that needs to plan for decades ahead in order to produce stone of the right quality at the right volume in an environmentally friendly way. As the noble Lord said, there is a need to dewater and return the water after it has been processed and cleaned.
I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. As the noble Lord also said, much of the material we are discussing is transported by rail to the benefit of the environment. Investment is made in the equipment needed for the crushing, loading, and screening processes and in all the other equipment that is required, including for concrete mixing. That is part of a big chain of business—it is almost a logistics chain—which could be affected if the businesses that run quarries are required to take the risk involved in reapplying for a licence after a comparatively short period.
If quarry companies have obtained the relevant planning permission, having consulted the Environment Agency, and having undergone very strict environmental assessments, it is reasonable for them to have the certainty of being able to carry on their business for the length of the planning permission without the worry of whether they can continue to extract water. If they cannot extract water, they cannot carry on the business.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, talked of the importance of assurance as regards those who have invested in the area we are discussing. Yesterday at Question Time we discussed the Royal Mail. The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, said that it was important that the Government did not interfere with business investments. I am not sure that I agreed with him on that occasion, but that was for another reason. However, it is important that uncertainty should be removed. The amendment is a reasonable attempt to bring the two timescales involved in planning permission and licences into line. I hope that if the Government cannot accept the wording of the amendment, my noble friend will at least agree to take it away and come back with a measure that would achieve a similar result.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, in speaking to the amendment I should declare an interest as a Somerset county councillor. I believe that the quarry to which the noble Lord referred is situated
418
in Frome, Somerset. My council is the mineral planning authority for that area. Considering the scale of its operations the quarrying industry in that area has done a great job in terms of considerate working and, in particular, in relandscaping worked areas. I pay tribute to the achievement of the quarrying industry in that regard.
I still have in mind a question as to the fact that dewatering is, as the noble Lord said, a closed-cycle operation. The water is taken out and the same quantity is put back. I think that he said that it was of equivalent quality, not necessarily the same quality. I am not sure what the difference is. I do not know whether dewatering is defined anywhere as a closed cycle, so I am not sure what, if we agreed to the amendment, we would understand dewatering legally to be. I may have become more interested in exact definitions as we have worked our way through the Bill, and I believe that they are important.
In general principle, I have accepted the argument that we should require all people, whether trickle irrigators, water companies or quarries, to be brought within the licensing arrangements for the Bill. I am minded to stay with that position, except for the persuasive argument of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, that dewatering is a closed cycle. I still have certain reservations.
The Government are in a difficult position on the amendment, however. Dewatering is a closed cycle and so they might not want to accept the amendment, but every time we mention British Waterways, which wants some of its reservoirs to stay outside the system, the Government are minded to allow it to do so. They say that that is a closed-water system and that British Waterways will use only the water from those reservoirs to fill those canals and nothing else. A slight double standard would seem to be operating if the Government did not like the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, but did like those suggested by British Waterways.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the amendment presents another aspect of the problem that all those involved in the water industry face, as did one of my earlier amendments. The reality is that, as with the water industry itself, a long-term industry such as the quarrying industry has very distinctive and specialist long-term problems. Above all else, the quarrying industry is not a water consumer, generally speaking. It takes water from one place, where it is an obstruction to its work, and puts it back in another. It clearly cannot put it back in the same hole; were it to do so, that would be such a circular motion that it would never get any quarrying done.
The industry could presumably recharge the underground aquifer from which it abstracted the water at a safe distance so that it was not a problem, but I suspect that sometimes it uses surface disposal into a river or whatever. In the context of catchment-area management, which is one of the drivers for the changes in the licensing system proposed in the Bill,

419
that is entirely acceptable. The catchment area is not losing water resource at all, and to that extent I completely support the noble Lord's thrust.
The difference of treatment mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, as regards British Waterways is an interesting conjunction that I had not reached myself. It indicates that the Government ought to think a little carefully about how they treat the amendment and the noble Lord's other amendments. They warrant the most serious consideration. I know that we shall get all the assurances that we have had previously on the matter, but people like what they can see. It is not that they do not like something if they have to go to research it to find out about it; they might be jolly relieved when they find the answer. However, if we can put the answer where they can see it in the Bill, it would save everyone a great deal of trouble. I definitely support the amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I shall begin, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, by dealing with the mechanism that he proposes in the amendment. I shall then move on to some of the issues that underlie his reason for tabling the amendment.
The amendment would completely remove from the Environment Agency and, incidentally, the Secretary of State on appeal, the responsibility for determining the key condition of the time limit to apply to transfer licences, but only those granted for dewatering activities. The duty would, in effect, be transferred to planning authorities, which are not set up to deal with it. Indeed, there is no statutory requirement for a planning authority to give effect to the Environment Agency's recommendations on the matter.
I acknowledge that the noble Lord is right that the agency is a statutory consultee for planning applications, but there is no requirement for the agency's views to be incorporated by the planning authority. If it is right that a transfer licence should initially be granted for a fixed period to deal with the uncertainties facing us in water resources management, that is the decision that should be arrived at, whoever takes it. The amendment may assume, of course, that the planning authority would in some way take less heed of the implied significance of its decision for water resources when deciding the appropriate duration of the planning permission. Alternately, it could imply that the duration of planning permission should be shorter for water resources reasons. Neither of those can be right. Each case must be considered on its merits.
The amendment would confuse responsibilities between the two regulatory regimes, which were set up for entirely different purposes. We agree that there must be liaison and co-operation between them. That already exists and works well. However, it cannot be right that the responsibilities of the planning regime are effectively removed and given to the other regime in just one particular aspect and for only one particular industry. Most, if not all, industries are subject to more than one regulatory regime, and we have to learn to deal with that.
420
The issue underlying the amendment is, of course, the question of the initial investment uncertainties if a transfer licence is shorter than the intended life of the quarry. We recognise the concerns of my noble friend Lord Berkeley and those that my noble friend Lord Borrie raised on previous occasions. We recognise that there are genuine and important concerns, but the problem is not insurmountable, and it is not entirely peculiar to the quarrying industry.
As we sought to do in Grand Committee, I can reassure the noble Lord that quarry and mine operators will have the same opportunities as all other abstractors to submit to the Environment Agency a business case in support of their applications, addressing issues relating to the proposed life of the initial licence to be granted. The time restriction on the operation would form part of such a submission, and the agency would have proper regard to it, as would the Secretary of State on any appeal. I hope that the noble Lord will accept the arguments against the mechanism that he proposes in the amendment.
With regard to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley, the position of mining and quarrying companies will be no different from that of industrial abstractors, in so far as local effects on the water environment are concerned. We recognise that they are not net consumers of water, although it is not unusual for the water taken out of the ground to be returned to a nearby stream. As far as concerns the groundwater resource, that may be a total loss. Quarry dewatering is achieved by pumping groundwater, as noble Lords have said, to enable dry working of the quarry. The water is usually put back into surface streams. Therefore, it may be a total loss to the groundwater resources.
Moreover—and this was one of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer—there is potential for significant adverse effects on adjacent groundwater sources and dependent features, such as springs, wetland, and SSSIs. In some circumstances where the acquifer generally may be already over-committed, especially in the future with climate change, it could reduce the availability of scarce resources for others.
However, we recognise that there may be circumstances where we need to consider the concerns of the noble Lord. I understand that a visit to a quarry has been arranged with a view to considering such issues. If it would be helpful, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, that a meeting could be arranged following that visit, and before Third Reading, to see whether we are able to come closer to reassuring him.
I stress, yet again, that where there is a reasonable requirement that depends upon the abstraction of water, a licence will generally be granted, provided only that the rights of other users and the environment are adequately protected. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. Where that is the case,

421
there will be no reason for the Environment Agency to refuse a licence. If nothing has changed, the same will apply at renewal. That is what we mean by presumption of grant and of renewal. This is how the system has operated since its inception. I have responded in as much detail as possible, because I hope to reassure the noble Lord. We are certainly happy for officials to meet him.
Reference has been made to British Waterways' reservoirs. I should point out that not all dewatering is a closed system. Indeed, as I have already said, there may be a loss from groundwater into streams. We are exempting only transfers from British Waterways' reservoirs to British Waterways' canals where they are for navigation and not other purposes. British Waterways' use is for productive purposes, whereas, in the case of dewatering, it is a by-product of the industrial activity taking place.
I have sought to answer the noble Lord's concerns, though I suspect he may wish to seek a meeting with officials between now and Third Reading. In the mean time, I hope that he feels reassured enough not to press his amendment today.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that British Waterways' water is for "productive purposes", but I would suggest that it is a matter of keeping a canal going so that barges can travel up and down it. Surely a quarry exists also for productive purposes, with the watering being an essential means of achieving those aims. What is the difference?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the difference is that it is impossible to travel up and down a canal without having water in it. That strikes me as the prime purpose of the water. The dewatering process is a by-product of the process of quarrying. The different modes and systems involved in dewatering and returning the water in equivalent quality is a matter that can be considered separately. There is no alternative to having water in the canal if one wishes the boat to travel along it.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, there is no alternative to dewatering a quarry if you wish to get stone out of it.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we are not, at this stage, discussing the dewatering of quarries; we are discussing whether it can reasonably be said to be different in every case from other commercial uses that require dewatering because of the processes involved.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, I thank the Minister for what I regard as a conciliatory reply, even if it is not quite consensual; indeed, that remains to be seen. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Dixon-Smith, for their support, as I do the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. Equally, perhaps I may couple that with thanks for the tribute paid to the good
422
practice of one of our members at Torr quarry. I believe that to be significant: the industry is responsible.
I have a few points to make. Beguiled, as I was, by the productivity of canals, I shall not enter into that argument. I begin with the question of what "dewatering" is legally. When St Augustine was asked "What is time?" He replied, "Well, when nobody asks me, I know what it is; but the minute somebody asks me I can't produce a definition that's adequate". That seems to me to be the same as the problem of giving a legal definition of "dewatering", although I dare say some lawyer could do so.
The issue raised by the noble Baroness was whether it is a closed cycle, and how that relates to quantity and quality. The quality is already checked. I shall give noble Lords an example. I know of a quarry that was fined by way of a penalty because its dewatering process left too much silt: it happened too quickly in the water that was abstracted and then returned. Therefore, there are processes already in place—and that will continue to be so—to deal with such situations so that quality can be measured.
The question of quantity and where the water goes is, perhaps, an issue for further discussion. The quantity can be measured. Equally, depending on pragmatic concerns, some of the water is stored in quarries. However, if the issue were to become whether one could store the water and return it to the original place, it would be a technical and technological question that could be confronted and considered to see whether it is practicable. I hope that my remarks deal with those questions.
The Minister's reply is such that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage. However, I reserve my position following the discussions that will take place in due course.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Limited extension of abstraction licence validity]:
Lord Sutherland of Houndwoodmoved Amendment No. 28:
Page 23, leave out lines 10 and 11.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall not speak at equivalent length on this amendment. I have set the context. The point of the amendment is very straightforward. It is to allow that a licence legitimately held can be transferred on the sale of a quarry, just as planning permission is currently transferred on such a sale.
Consolidation has taken place in the industry, and has maximised both high quality and efficiency, and consolidation will continue to take place. It would be a serious impediment if a licence had to be re-applied for in the possible event of the consolidation of two major companies and an application had to be made for every quarry that they ran, or, alternatively, where a single quarry is amalgamated into larger combine. I

423
hope that the proposal is straightforward; namely, that licences can be transferred, all other things being equal. 1 beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I rise with a certain amount of regret to express my slight concern about the amendment. Clause 20 makes the burden of responsibility for the renewal of an extraction licence—particularly the initiation of the process—a responsibility of the Environment Agency. That is not unreasonable. The amendment, however, would shift that responsibility back to the applicant.
In the case of a large quarrying business or any other large industrial use, that is well and fine. But we have talked about the administrative burdens on agriculture. I am not sure that, from the point of view of most of the agricultural industry, one would not rather see the initiation responsibility with the Environment Agency. One could be much more sure that the Environment Agency would not forget about it—whereas I would not absolutely guarantee my own memory, or indeed that of every farmer in the country. For that reason, we have a concern about the amendment—although anything that makes the process easier would be welcome.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am slightly concerned. My understanding is that the effect of the amendment would be to allow the extension of a time-limited licence under the remaining conditions of this clause, even if the person who makes the application for renewal is someone other than the existing licence holder.
It seems to us most unlikely that a person other than the existing licence holder would either want or be in a position to meet the appropriate application for the purposes of this clause to operate. We are not persuaded that parties in negotiation for a transaction would necessarily want this, given that the seller would want to preserve his own right until such time as the sale was agreed.
I hope I have clarified the matter. If I have not clarified the position with regard to an existing licensee, the licensee will be able to transfer the licence to a new owner at any time simply by giving notice to the agency. If the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, has any remaining concerns in this area, I think I ought to offer to respond to any queries he raises. However, I hope that I have been able to reassure him.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. I have heard the concerns expressed both by the noble Baroness and by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and I will consider the points raised.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 [Claims arising out of water abstraction]:
Baroness O'Cathainmoved Amendment No. 29:
Page 30, line 28, at end insert—
"(8) It shall be a defence to proceedings brought under this section that the abstractor was abstracting the water in accordance with the provisions of a licence granted under this Chapter.""
424
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, my noble friends Lady Byford and Lord Dixon-Smith have added their names to the amendment. It proposes to add a new subsection (8) for the purpose of providing a suggested defence of compliance with an extraction licence. It would, of course, be necessary to remove the quotation marks at the end of subsection (7) of proposed new Section 48A before adding the new subsection.
As the Bill stands, Clause 24 would insert a new Section 48A into the Water Resources Act 1991 which would create a new statutory tort of causing damage by abstraction of water. However, except where small quantities of water are involved, it is generally necessary to obtain an extraction licence from the Environment Agency. This enables the agency to assess the impact of the proposed extraction and, then, taking its assessment into account, refuse a licence or grant a licence with or without conditions. In this connection, the agency should be better placed than the abstractor to assess the potential impact of an abstraction.
In the circumstances, when an abstractor is complying with the conditions of his licence, it seems reasonable that such compliance should amount to a defence to any proceedings brought under the proposed new Section 48A of the Water Resources Act. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, Clause 24 introduces the right to sue any abstractor who causes damage. The intention is that the change will foster greater environmental responsibility and respect for other property among the abstractors. They will need to remain alert to the possibility that they are harming others or otherwise they could be subject to a claim for damages.
In granting a licence, the agency will not have considered the effect of abstraction on the property of third parties. It will have considered only the effect on water resources, on the environment and on the rights of other abstractors to abstract. It is important to bear in mind that it is the abstraction of water that can cause damage, irrespective of whether this is under licence or not.
The abstraction licences allow abstraction without committing any offence. It is not a licence to allow or cause harm to the environment, damage to property or any other detrimental effect. Therefore, the indemnity that the clause would give, with the abstractor abstracting water in line with a licence but against causing damage to the property of someone else, would not have been taken into account in the granting of the licence. It is part of everyone's general duty of care to ensure that in conducting their businesses, which in this case would include the abstraction of water, they do not do so to the detriment of the property of others. 1 believe that that is far too wide an indemnity to be inserted in the Bill and I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he not consider that there should be a responsibility for the damage that one person might do to another? If damage is above the ground, it is easy to see, but damage can be caused to a third party without awareness. Therefore, I believe that there is great strength in the amendment moved by my noble friend and I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify the matter a little further.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, whatever business one is in, one is under a duty of care not to damage someone else's property. The granting of a licence does not override that duty of care. However, the amendment would mean that the person being damaged would not have the right to sue a person who had abstracted water and thereby caused damage. That is not sensible. Not only must the abstractor operate in terms of the licence, he must also operate with regard to the duty of care. Saying simply that he has abstracted water in accordance with the licence is not an adequate defence against the duty to avoid damage to other people's property, whether or not it is above the surface and immediately visible.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I do not know whether the Minister heard what I said. I said that the agency grants the abstraction licence, so therefore the agency assesses the impact of the proposed abstraction. Then, taking its assessment into account, it can refuse a licence. Is there no responsibility on the agency?
The Minister said that the Environment Agency took into account water resources, the environment and the right of other abstractors to abstract, but surely the agency's assessment must take into account the possible impact on third parties. Is that not a duty on the Environment Agency when granting an abstraction licence? We must not forget that it grants the licence, so can the Minister clarify the point?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are in danger of getting out of order again. The agency is bound to take into account damage to the environment, which may include property damage, and damage to the right or ability of another abstractor to abstract, but it does not take into account any more general, non-environmental damage which any business is obliged to try to avoid. To give an indemnity against that simply because an abstractor is fulfilling the terms of his licence on abstraction would be excessive and would not be granted in other circumstances.
It is not the duty of the Environment Agency to ensure that by giving a licence it prevents someone causing damage further down the line. In granting the licence, it must take into account the specifics.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Obviously, I am unhappy about it and shall seek advice on whether an amendment to limit some of the proceedings brought against the abstractor under the proposed Section 48A
426
of the Water Resources Act can be limited. I shall return to the matter at Third Reading and in the meantime beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 [Compensation for modification of licence on direction of Secretary of State]:
Baroness O'Cathainmoved Amendment No. 30:
Page 30, line 43, at end insert—
"( ) After subsection (4) there is inserted—
"( ) Subsection (4) above shall not apply while the possibility of the abstraction of water under the licence constitutes part of—

(a) any water resource management scheme maintained under section 20, 20A or 20B above; or

(b) any drought plan maintained under section 39B above.""

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 30 amends Clause 25 and deals with sleeper licences. On 3rd April, the third day of Grand Committee, we had a long debate on sleeper licences.
If my amendment is carried, the reduction of sleeper licences from seven to four years under Clause 25 would not apply where water may be abstracted as part of the,
"water resource management scheme… or any drought plan".
At the moment, water companies are required to produce water resource management plans. The Bill places these and drought plans on a statutory basis. Sleeper licences give companies the flexibility they need to manage their water resources. If sleeper licences are reduced from seven to four years, companies may need to revise their existing plans, and, indeed, they might not be able to produce the water required in a drought period.
We do not have any model which suggests that droughts occur every three and a half years. They could happen every two years, or indeed every year or sometimes not before six years. If drought plans are not in existence, the problem is huge for water consumers.
When the amendment was discussed in Grand Committee, the Minister said that he was "sympathetic" but argued that the clause was only meant to be used in,
"a situation where unnecessary, unreasonable non-use of a licence causes damage in one form of another".
The Minister indicated that if the so-called sleeper licence were part of long-term planning and drought planning, clearly the Environment Agency would he acting unreasonably if it tried to revoke it.
He continued:
"Clearly, if there is no damage to the environment or to access to water, the Environment Agency would be acting unreasonably to revoke a licence being used for beneficial purposes".—[Official Report. 3/4/03; col. GC 170.]
He added, at col. 171, that it,
"would not be reasonable for the Environment Agency to act against a water company if the sleeper licences … were part of a water company's plan".
At that stage, the Minister sought to justify the new clause on the basis that the agency must be able to intervene for unnecessary non-use of a licence that causes damage or certainty in the management of that

427
water resources plan. He indicated that it was a power for the agency to deal with particular situations in which the abstractor was behaving unreasonably by not using the abstraction rights.
He argued that,
"the intervention is a power in certain circumstances to be exerted reasonably and with due regard to all the other duties and powers in the Bill by the Environment Agency".—[Official Report, 3/4/03; col. GC 172.]
The amendment, in essence, provides water companies with a protection on the face of the Bill against the risk of losing abstraction rights that they might need for water resource management plans and drought plans. It makes a clear distinction between situations in which an abstractor is behaving unreasonably by not using the abstraction rights—in other words, a dog in the manger approach—and those where sleeper licences are an integral part of water resource management plans and drought plans. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment. We did indeed have a long discussion in Committee about the whole question of sleeper licences. I believe that changing the length of period over which it is allowable to suspend abstractions without losing one's licence needs to be carefully examined.
In Committee, the Minister was adamant that the Environment Agency must review the use or non-use of licences in the light of reasonableness. He said:
"The Environment Agency will not be required to take away a licence that has not been used for four years: it will have a power to do so, if, in all reasonable circumstances, it judges that there is unreasonable non-use of the licence that is either causing environmental damage or preventing access to the water for other potential users".—[Official Report, 3/4/03; col. GC 168.]
I have some questions for the Minister. In drafting the Bill, did the Government and their advisers calculate four years? Did someone go out and ask non-users why they were not abstracting water? Did that someone then work out the mathematical average time that it took for non-users to become "no further requirement for"? What factors were involved in reaching four, rather than two or five, years? Will the changing face of Britain have an effect in years to come on that figure?
There is almost no industry left. When it has all gone, will water abstraction be done by mining and quarrying, water undertakers and food producers alone? When that happens, will four years be workable, never mind reasonable? What happens to a farmer or a water undertaker who loses the right to abstract and then needs it again? Does the farmer have to relocate? Does he have to change his crop rotation? Does he have to let his beasts die of thirst first? At current prices, it may become more economical to slaughter them than to pay water bowsers to visit the farm.
Does the water undertaker tell developers of the new 4,000 unit estate that there will be no local water supply? Is a water undertaker allowed to do just that?
428
Is he allowed to charge more for supply to that estate because it comes from Wales or Scotland, or will all the region's customers have to pay?
Will the Minister give details of how the four years was reached? Will he tell us how many abstraction licences have not been used for four, five, six or seven years? Can he subdivide those figures by region and then give us the water volumes involved? Will he also set against that breakdown of unused capacity the totals of unfilled demand represented by would-be abstractors in each region who are unable to gain licences?
We have pursued the amendment at length in Committee, but many of those basic questions have not been answered. Will the Minister provide the totals, for example, for each water undertaker of the "imports" from other regions that will be rendered unnecessary by the reduction from seven to four years? Will he also provide an estimate of the costs, by water undertaker, that will be saved by taking this step and the likely effect on household bills?
If I may, I shall discuss the environment. Will the Minister tell us what calculations have been made of improvements that will follow on from this action? Can he cite examples in each region of species to be protected that will otherwise be in decline or fail? Will he give us calculations of the effect on the landscape, with its beneficial follow-through to tourism?
In other words, can the Minister lay out in detail the thinking, calculations and the evidence that this change to abstraction licences will result in measurable, tangible, obvious benefits to some parts of society? The Minister indicated previously that the Government are not minded to give way on this amendment. If so, those basic questions deserve a reply.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment on the grounds that, in any large quarrying footprint, different areas of the quarry may be worked at different times but all within the same investment horizon. The reasons for a section of a quarry not being worked, with the result that it may require a separate licence, may be beyond the control of the company in question. None the less, the investment assumes that that section can be worked without further impediment. I therefore support the amendment.
6 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have debated the matter at great length before; I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for quoting large chunks of my speeches on the subject. But the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, is asking me a whole range of questions about why the existing seven years will be reduced to four years. I cannot answer most of her questions.
We are moving into an era in which we need tighter control of water resources. Therefore, if there is a damaging sleeper licence, it would be sensible to be able to intervene earlier than previously. We hope that the number of occasions on which that would occur

429
would be relatively small. As I said, the Environment Agency would not be acting reasonably were it to revoke a sleeper licence when the non-use of the ability to abstract was because of a shift in part of the quarry that was being used, or for other planning purposes.
This part of the Bill provides for where the revocation can be made without compensation. The circumstances in which that may arise will be limited: to where the existence of that sleeper licence caused environmental damage because failure to abstract had caused problems down stream, or whatever; or where it had damaged the interest of another abstractor; and where it was unjustified on grounds of the type referred to in the debate in relation to the quarrying and farming industry.
It would of course also be unreasonable for the Environment Agency to act were the provision to be part of the undertaking's drought plan or water resource management plan, which itself would have already been agreed by the Environment Agency. It would be somewhat bizarre were the Environment Agency to act to revoke something that was part of a plan to which it had already been party.
The number of circumstances in which that has arisen under seven years has been relatively limited; the number that would arise under four years would therefore be limited; but it could exist and cause serious damage to another abstractor or to the environment further downstream. Therefore, we need to provide for the Environment Agency to act without fear of being faced with substantial compensation claims as a result.
However, the instances referred to by the noble Baronesses, Lady O'Cathain and Lady Byford, and by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, would not fall within that category. In those circumstances, it would not be reasonable for the Environment Agency so to act.
I know that we are going over ground covered in Grand Committee, but I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that explanation and the need to have tighter controls over damaging sleeper licences, but not give the Environment Agency carte blanche to intervene where the non-use is part of a sensible planned use of resources of the type described.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may press him a little further. If someone is causing damage, my understanding is—perhaps the Minister can clarify this for me—that the Environment Agency has existing responsibilities under which, if someone is damaging the environment or doing something that he should not be doing, the agency can act straight away. That issue is entirely separate from that of the period of licence renewal being reduced from seven to four years.
I find the Minister's argument illogical. I hope that I am not the only noble Lord currently in the Chamber who is confused. We are dealing with two separate issues. No one in the House has suggested that where damage is being done, action should not be taken straight away against someone damaging the water
430
course, the environment, or whatever. I should like to make that clear, because if the Minister thinks that we want to defend people who damage them, I have obviously not expressed our position clearly.
My various questions were to raise why the Government wish to reduce the number from seven to four: why that number rather than any other ratio? I know that I asked many questions. If the Minister is not able to answer them immediately—I accept that he probably is not—I should be grateful for a general steer. I should then be quite happy for him to respond later. But, for the sake of the House, I want to clarify that we are dealing with two separate issues that have unfortunately been merged. One is damage, and I am sure that all of us would say that it should be dealt with immediately. If it is not dealt with properly, that licence should be revoked. The other issue, to which my noble friend's amendment relates, is the reduction of a sleeper licence from seven years to four years. I hope that the Minister can clarify that.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is no mathematical formula that shows that four years is the exact figure. The Environment Agency has some powers to intervene in the case of emergency damage but not when there is a long-term effect from a failure to abstract water at a particular point for no good reason or no reason that is justifiable in terms of the management of the facility or the use of the water. After all, the revocation of a licence that has not been used effectively releases increasingly scarce resources for somebody else to use.
It seemed sensible to reduce from seven to four years the period of non-use, potentially damaging use or, at a minimum, failure to allow the water to be used by somebody else. We consulted abstractors on the matter in 1998, when we discussed the general approach to water planning. By and large, a reduction was felt to be sensible. I cannot justify four years mathematically. If either noble Baroness requires further information, I will, of course, write, but there is no more precise answer, except to say that it was generally regarded as a reasonable move.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I thank the Minister. I had a certain amount of sympathy with him, when he was confronted with the questions asked by my noble friend Lady Byford. I thought, "My goodness. How many more?". I asked her sotto voce, and she said, "Probably 20. Maybe more". We know that there is no way that the Minister could reply to those questions at this stage. However, I must say, sparing my noble friend's blushes, that it shows the amount of research that she does. She gave us a clear picture of the sort of problems that could arise.
I reiterate what was said. There is no question of damaging the environment. Anybody who damages the environment must be penalised there and then. I do not intend to divide the House on the amendment, but I certainly intend to bring the matter back. In the mean

431
time, I want the Minister to consider a couple of questions from me, as opposed to my noble friend. The Minister has discussed the matter with abstractors, who seemed generally to accept the reduction from seven to four. I ask him specifically whether they have looked at the matter on a regional basis.
I come back to a point that was made either at Second Reading or in Grand Committee: the average amount of water per head in the South East is less than that per capita in Sudan or Ethiopia. We have a massive water shortage in the South East. By the very nature of the climatic conditions that prevail in the South and South East, we are more likely to be in drought situations. I am sure that few people living in certain parts of the country—the North East, the Borders or up there in the Lake District—are subjected to hosepipe bans. I remember many such bans, fortunately not in the past few years. With the additional threat—I use the word advisedly—that a lot more housing will be situated in the South East—something like 46,500 new homes—there are bound to be problems with water resource management plans. The sleeper licence is absolutely imperative for drought planning.
Although the Bill is environmentally skewed—rightly— we should not forget that one of the big things about water is that we must produce clean, usable water for everybody in the country on a regular basis. If we decide to do away with sleeper licences or reduce them to four years, we could fail in our duty to do that. The Environment Agency would be found to have failed. But because the Environment Agency is an agency for government, it would come back to the Government. As a director of a water company, it would be quite nice not to have to face the brouhaha of the local population when it is reduced to standpipes and hose-pipe bans. We would be able to say, "Oh, it is the Government's fault". But, of course, everyone says that anyway.
If there is a drought, I should like the Minister to give some consideration to what the Government would be able to do. Would they be able to revitalise an abstraction licence and give a quick—within a day—abstraction licence to a water company? Indeed, would they be able to reactivate that? I am not so sure that they would. I must say—rather flippantly—that if the people who have given advice to the Minister, whether officials or other abstractors, have said, "Well, probably, four years is the maximum we need", are they such brilliant weather forecasters that we can rely on them to reveal where we should go for our holidays for the next seven, eight or 10 years? I know that is a slightly flippant comment, but in the circumstances it is a very serious issue. I shall not seek the opinion of the House today but I hope that between now and Third Reading, the Minister will give some thought to the points raised—certainly those raised by my noble friend—and revisit this issue. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness O'Cathainmoved Amendment No. 31:
Page 31, line 24, at end insert—
"(4C) Whenever the Secretary of State determines that compensation should not be paid under this section in respect of the variation of a licence on the grounds set out in subsection (4A) above, the holder of the licence may dispute the determination by referring the dispute to the arbitration of a single arbitrator.
(4D) When a dispute is referred to arbitration under subsection (4C) above—

(a) the arbitrator shall take into account any representations that the Secretary of State, the Environment Agency or the Authority may wish to submit to him; and

(b) in making his award the arbitrator may confirm, revoke or vary the whole of the Secretary of State's determination, or any part of the determination whether the reference relates to that part of the determination or not.""

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 31, I speak also to Amendment No. 35. I assure noble Lords that I shall be brief. Clauses 25 and 27 will, in prescribed circumstances, empower the Secretary of State to deprive licence holders of rights under existing licences without the payment of compensation. This amendment provides a right of appeal against the merits of such decisions to some independent person or tribunal. It recognises that existing rights are affected.
This is part of a package of amendments on appeals which aim to ensure that there are rights of appeal on the merits of the regulator's decisions to independent persons, taking into account that there are already such rights in relation to the granting of abstraction licences and decisions on competition issues. These amendments, and other appeal provisions, replace what I would refer to as our "jumbo" appeals amendment in Grand Committee. It was somewhat complex and caused some confusion. Instead, specific amendments are proposed to provisions where regulatory decisions affect existing rights or are punitive in nature. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and, no doubt, her colleagues, have made quite an effort to move away from the so-called "jumbo" amendment tabled in Grand Committee. Looking at this amendment, I think that we can go back to square one and determine whether each of these is justified. Amendment No. 31—I think the same point applies to Amendment No. 35 with which Amendment No. 31 is grouped—deals with the right of the Secretary of State to deprive licence holders of compensation when rights are withdrawn. The basic question is: is that not an issue on which there ought, in all terms of natural justice, to be some sort of right of appeal somewhere?
The idea that there should be a single arbitrator—it does not say who or how he or she would be chosen—presumably would be agreed between the parties, as would be normal. If there was no agreement, one would go to someone like the president of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators to appoint one. It seems to me a matter of common sense that, when

433
anyone has a power of this kind—such as the Secretary of State has here—not to pay compensation on certain grounds, those grounds are challengeable, they are disputable, and someone else should be able to determine whether it is a correct decision or not.
When Ministers and regulators have decision-making powers on matters of policy, it is often inappropriate that there should be a right of appeal because it is a right of appeal from a specialised person with particular powers relating to policy to another person outside the circle. As I have said, that is completely inappropriate. But here we are not talking about appeals on matters of policy, but appeals on whether compensation should be paid on certain specified grounds set out in the statute, which is a matter of interpretation.
Some form of appeal, perhaps that suggested in the amendment, seems quite suitable, while judicial review would be much too narrow and limited because presumably it would succeed only if one could prove that the Secretary of State was acting illegally or had not followed the right procedures. That seems inadequate for the matter raised by the noble Baroness.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I too support the amendment moved by my noble friend. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, was quite right to say that a good deal of work has been put into trying to find the appropriate wording. When looking around the Benches, I wonder whether we will have been successful, but we shall know that later.
It is clear that there is a human rights issue here. We have not framed the amendment around human rights, but if someone is to be deprived of their rights to compensation currently in place, I would suspect that the Government have considered it and will have clarified that there is no human rights challenge. Ultimately, however, it is not right for the Government to be judge and jury over their own business. Given that this amendment has not defined or specified exactly who the person should be, it should be something that the Government will feel able to take on board. Provided that the person is acceptable to the two businesses or challengers concerned, then I see no difficulty with it.
We had considered whether we should define the person, but at this stage we felt that the amendment might be more acceptable to the Government if it was left to the Secretary of State or to the Environment Agency to define the single arbitrator.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for his strong support for this amendment.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there may be something of a misunderstanding here. Where a licence is revoked or modified, compensation is payable for loss or damage under Section 61 of the Water Resources Act 1991. The same section also provides that any disputes over the amount of compensation, or whether compensation
434
should be paid, may be referred to the Lands Tribunal. The tribunal is independent of the Secretary of State and is thoroughly experienced in carrying out such assessments. So in general a system of appeal is already in place.
Clauses 25 and 27 set out a limited and statutorily defined set of circumstances in which compensation would not be payable after an abstraction licence is modified or revoked. If the clauses stand, it is not then a question of judgment or appeal to the Secretary of State, it is a matter of statute.
The amendments seek to amend those clauses to install the principle that the holder of a new licence should not be deprived of abstraction rights without the possibility of a hearing. I accept that principle. However, the Water Resources Act already provides a mechanism for a hearing in such cases. This would take place when it was decided whether to vary or revoke a licence on the grounds set out in the two clauses.
It is important to note that, contrary to the implication of the amendment, Section 61 of the Water Resources Act does not provide for the Secretary of State to make a decision whether to award compensation. As I have said, that would follow as a result of statute in the circumstances set out in these two clauses.
The procedure for deciding whether to vary or revoke a licence is set out in Sections 52 to 54 of the Water Resources Act. Therefore, at the appropriate stage in the decision-making process there is already the chance for a full hearing as to the need for the revocation or modification of an abstraction licence.
Whether or not the interpretation of those clauses is correct is a matter for judicial review, but it is not a judgment or a decision of the Secretary of State that can be appealed against, which I think is the motivation for the amendments.
With that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendments.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I am deeply unsatisfied by the Minister's response. I take his point that there is already access to judicial review, but that is both cumbersome and costly. The issue should be taken out of that area.
I liked the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, in regard to the Institute of Arbitrators. Whenever that body has been used in the past it has delivered answers that seem to satisfy everyone. A judicial review often gives a "yea" or a "nay" answer, which does not satisfy anyone—certainly not the people who feel aggrieved.
There is a great feeling that the powers are stacked against the water industry. In those circumstances, I should like to test the opinion of the House.
6.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 31) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 84.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Blatch, B.

Linklaterof Butterstone, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lyell, L.

Buscombe, B.

Montrose, D.

Byford,B.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Northesk, E.

Colwyn, L.

O'Cathain,B.[Teller]

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Onslow, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Rawlings, B.

Denham, L.

Renton, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Seccombe, B.

Erroll, E.

Shrewsbury, E.

Fowler, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Freyberg, L.

Sutherland of Houndwood, L

Hanham, B.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Higgins, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Howe, E.

Weatherill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Alli,L.

Hardy of Wath,L.

Amos, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Andrews, B.

Harrison, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hayman, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Blackstone, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hoyle, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Brookman, L.

Judd, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kilclooney, L.

Burlison, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Carter, L.

Layard, L.

Christopher, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Lipsey, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Crawley, B.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

David, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mclntosh of Hudnall, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Desai, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Donoughue, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Parekh, L.

Dubs, L.

Pendry, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Puttnam, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Rooker, L.

Filkin, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gale, B.

Simon, V.

Gavron, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Symons of Vemham Dean, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Uddin, B.

Goudie, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

436

Whitaker, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L (Lord Privy Seal)

Whitty, L.

Wilkins, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.32 p.m.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domermoved Amendment No. 33:
Page 32, line 21, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I hesitantly return to the thorny issue of compensation. The amendment relates to the removal of compensation for the revocation or variation of time-limited licences that cause serious environmental damage. As it is drafted, the Bill allows the revocation or variation of any licence for abstraction, without compensation and without a time limit, in order to offer protection from serious damage to any waters or flora or fauna dependent on them.
While that is a welcome provision, a number of environmental organisations feel there is still a loophole because a licence granted with a time limit can continue to operate even if it is causing environmental damage. Continued operation is likely to be the reality if compensation has to be paid under revocation or variation. That position was strengthened by the Minister's reply to a previous amendment—not the one on which we have just voted, but an earlier one. It is difficult to argue that abstraction should be allowed to continue under any licence if it has been confirmed that abstraction is causing serious damage to the environment.
The Government may like to consider that the amendment is all the more necessary, given that the Bill's flexible approach may allow time-limited licences to be granted for quite long periods in some instances. I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it has been announced on the television that the office of Lord Chancellor should be abolished. Is it not totally disgraceful that no Statement has been made to Parliament and no discussion has taken place, and that an office of 800 years has been abolished without anyone debating it? At the whim of the Prime Minister, we have altered the constitution. Suddenly we are landed with this, and nobody knows what is happening. It is an abuse of process, of privilege and of office. What can we do about it? I therefore beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, may I respectfully suggest to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that if he wishes to raise the issue in the Chamber, it would be wise for him to consult his Leader and Chief

437
Whip and have a discussion through the usual channels rather than seek to use this extraordinary procedure now?
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, if so, why did not the Government do the same and issue a White Paper showing what they are going to do to the constitution? It is a complete and utter disgrace. I have probably made my point. I am probably out of order. I am probably anachronistic. However, I feel so strongly about this abuse of the constitution, abuse of privilege and abuse of power—all the things on which Parliament is supposed to hold the executive to account. But no one turns a hair. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn.—[The Earl of Onslow.]
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, may I ask the House for some guidance on this issue? I moved my amendment, but the noble Earl, for understandable reasons, has moved another Motion. I am not sure which Motion we are considering.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I think that it must be in order for us to take the noble Baroness's amendment which was before the House.
Noble Lords: Division.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Motion to adjourn the House must be a divisible Motion if it is objected to.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, on the position of order, my assumption is that the Motion just moved by my noble friend is both debatable and divisible and should now be proceeded with. I think that the Deputy Speaker should put the Question, and if Peers wish to take part in a debate, we should proceed to debate the Motion on the lines that my noble friend proposed.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the reason why I do this is not that I feel any great love for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, although I respect him. I do this not because I have any great love for any successor who may be appointed to his position. I do this because I think that it is completely disgraceful that a constitutional position and constitutional office should suddenly be abolished at the whim of a Prime Minister. All other constitutions have checks and balances in them. How dare he treat this House with such contempt? How dare he overlook the enormous services of someone like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn? How dare he behave as he has?
We live in a parliamentary democracy. We live in a democracy honed by centuries of checks and balances. We cannot have arbitrary government, but this is arbitrary government at its absolute worst. That is what my forebear commanded a regiment of
438
parliamentary cavalry for—to ensure that there was no arbitrary government. Suddenly we have arbitrary government at its absolute worst.
In they come, summoned by the Whips. And they sit in a little bloc behind the Minister so they can all be seen on television.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, the noble Earl knows that I normally sit in this place. Noble Lords sitting in front of the noble Earl will confirm that I have sat in this place throughout most of the day.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has been glued to that Bench for as long as he has been in this House. I concede that that is his normal place. But suddenly a block of noble Lords appear opposite. They were summoned in by the Whips. We know the origin of the Whips. They were invented by Walpole who was a beagling fanatic. I refer to hunting whippers-in.
I may be flippant as regards Whips and noble Lords opposite sitting in a bloc in the hope of being seen on television but I am not being flippant when I refer to the abuse of the constitution that we have just witnessed. I am not being flippant when I say that you cannot just change 800 years of British political history at the whim of the temporary—thank God—occupant of No. 10. All occupants of No. 10 are temporary.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, unless anyone else wishes to contribute to the debate I should like to make a few points. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde, who would otherwise no doubt speak from this Dispatch Box, is at the moment taking part in a television programme in the north of England.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, noble Lords may laugh at that but they know perfectly well that when one is involved in political life one takes on those engagements.
There seem to me to be two aspects of what has occurred this afternoon. First, the Prime Minister reshuffled the Cabinet and moved some people from one department to another. He also moved some responsibilities from one department to another. That is conventional and has happened before. No doubt a transfer of functions order is required to put that into effect but it is within the prerogative of the Prime Minister from the Crown. Secondly, it appears from the television that the Government seem to have said that in future they will not allow the Lord Chancellor to fulfil the role that occupants of that office have fulfilled for many hundreds of years. In effect the Government are withdrawing from the House of Lords the services of the Lord Chancellor as presiding officer. That has potentially many consequences for your Lordships' House and for its future. Those are ultimately matters for the House. The House itself will, I believe, need to reach decisions about what to do.

439
I am not sufficient of a constitutional legal expert to know whether primary legislation will be involved in the changes being made to the office of Lord Chancellor but I guess that it will be required. It will certainly be required with regard to the appointment of judges. I believe that a new statutory appointments commission will need to be set up. I am not sure how judges will be appointed in the meantime but no doubt we shall be told that.
I am particularly concerned about the effect of what has happened on the House of Lords and its management. As I say, I believe that that is a matter for the House. I also believe that it is a matter on which we should have wide consultation and discussion, perhaps in the appropriate committees of the House or through some other mechanism. We shall need that consultation. It would be extremely helpful if the Government would say what they are doing, why they are doing this to the House of Lords, why this change is being made and what they intend to do about the consequences. The short-term consequences can no doubt be managed in some way or other but deep thought will need to be given to the long-term consequences as regards how the House of Lords will in future function.
The noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House is present and can no doubt guide us on what is in the Government's mind on such matters, so that we can see about future aspects of the House of Lords and how a process of consultation and consideration is intended to be taken forward on what has happened this afternoon.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I obviously regret that there are not more experienced and longer-serving Members of these Benches to comment on the matter. I think it regrettable that the announcement was not first made to the House, given that it was of so much importance to it. That mistake having been made, however, I do not believe that it would he in the interests of the House to debate it or to adjourn at this point. simply because of the lack of people whom I know would want to take part in the debate who had no idea that we would now be discussing something of such importance.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said that I had been summoned in by the Whips. I was not. It would have been helpful to have been informed before he attempted his device.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, that is exactly my point. It would have been helpful if the announcement had not been sprung on us by television. What is sauce for the goose is, I am afraid, sauce for the gander.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I suppose that that is on the well known constitutional and moral basis that two wrongs do not make a right. At all events, I forgive the noble Earl his unusual discourtesy and shall attend to the facts. I offer a word of advice, if I may: do not believe everything that one hears on the television. I cannot remember how many people have told me today that I was either resigning or had already resigned. As Lord Denning famously said, I have all the virtues apart from those of resignation.
440
The noble Baroness is quite right: this is not the occasion to discuss something of such importance to all of us. In my experience here, no one side and no one individual has a monopoly of regard for the House. However, I would like to read out the words that were distributed. They have not been properly commented on or properly disseminated. The title is:
"Reform of the Speakership of the House of Lords".
The noble Lord quite rightly said that there must be consultation, which I am sure will chime and echo in the minds of all noble Lords. I hope that I can say that I have never failed to consult on any issue of importance in this House. Frequently, we come to different conclusions, but I do not think that any noble Lord could say that I did not offer a consultative approach.
The statement reads:
"The Leader of the House of Lords will consult with the other parties"—
that of course includes the Cross-Benchers and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig—
"and the House as a whole, on changes to Standing Orders enabling a new Speaker—who is not a Minister—to be in place after the recess".
I come to the all-important phrase that governs all the rest, which is,
"subject to the wishes of the House".
What could be more reasonable and accommodating to the wishes of the House than that? As biblical scholars in my childhood as a Calvinistic Methodist always told me, look at the text and not the commentary.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I am not quite sure from what the noble and learned Lord said whether there will be discussions between the usual channels as to whether the abolition of the Lord Chancellorship should take place, or only as to what should be put in its place.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am dealing with the question of the speakership of the House of Lords. I repeat that I have been required—willingly so— by the Prime Minister to consult all other parties in the House as a whole on changes to Standing Orders. Some would say—I could not possibly comment—that for a legislative chamber of what we all believe, I as much as any noble Lord, to be of importance to have no voice in choosing its own "speaker" is very curious. I am not sure that I know of any other Chamber in the world that does not choose its own speaker.
It seems to me that most noble Lords—indeed, all of us here—want to make this House stronger, more effective and more efficient. This is an opportunity for us to do so. However, I shall read the words again. Obviously, I speak so softly that those words have not been understood:
"subject to the wishes of the House".
Lord Denham: My Lords, I am sorry but I wish to press this point. The wishes of this House will be found out as to whether or not the office of Lord Chancellor should go. Is that right?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: No, my Lords. It is a perfectly plain constitutional principle: a Prime

441
Minister may appoint members to his cabinet as he or she chooses, or not. As a matter of pure constitutional principle, to which I know the noble Lord is strongly wedded, the Prime Minister is perfectly entitled to propose these changes which will require legislation; that is to say, they will require the assent of both Houses, as is the case with all legislation.
The specific point about the speakership of this Chamber is dealt with in the paragraph to which I referred. There is nothing new about constitutional change. The noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, brought about a good deal of it.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have one small point to make. I do not necessarily disagree with some of the proposals contained in the document that I have only had a change to glance at. However, as my noble friend Lord Onslow said, it is regrettable that we were informed of government thinking in this matter by means of comment on television programmes and a press release that suddenly appeared on the desks of some noble Lords.
There may be some important sense in the proposals contained in the document. I should like to reflect on those and think about them. I have long been in favour of the idea of having a separate supreme court to your Lordships' House, but I hope that the Government will reflect on how irked and irritated many noble Lords feel to learn of the Government's thinking in these matters in the way that I described.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I agree with the underlying theme of the remarks just made by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. As he said, this is not the occasion to have a debate without having first reflected on these matters. If I understand the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, correctly, and he wished merely to register his point, I believe that he has done so. The sense that I have is that your Lordships would welcome a fully informed and reasoned discussion—indeed, I would hope a fully informed and reasonable discussion—when all those who have an interest can contribute.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was, as always, courteous enough to tell me this morning that he had a prior engagement. It is not a trivial one. He could hardly discharge it without discourtesy. The noble Earl has made his point: it has been heard and doubtless it will be reflected on. It is time to draw the line.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend has done more than make his point. He has done the House a service in drawing out of the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House the description of what it is that the Government have in mind and how they propose to take it further. However, it would have been better if that explanation had not been dragged out of the noble and learned Lord by the initiative of my noble friend. It would have been preferable if the House had been given this information more directly.
442
I believe that I am right in saying that the noble and learned Lord was reading from a press release from No. 10 Downing Street. Therefore, it would be extremely helpful if, at the very least, copies of that document were made available in the Printed Paper Office as soon as can conveniently be arranged to enable noble Lords to study not only the words read out by the noble and learned Lord but also the surrounding proposals.
We are discussing a very profound change, not only to the constitution but also to the management arrangements of this House, which it is proposed to alter in the future. I believe that I am right in saying that the Lord Chancellor is the second person in the land after Her Majesty the Queen. That is his position. Simply to announce on television that the position no longer exists, and not to tell this House, which will be so deeply affected by this decision in the future, was a discourtesy of a kind for which the noble and learned Lord is not normally responsible. As he himself claimed, he does indeed consult on many matters, and it is very important that on this matter there should be careful consultation. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for at least saying that that will be so. He explained that he has taken his instructions from the Prime Minister. I accept that. But it is a matter which deeply concerns the House as a whole, and the House has not been courteously treated this afternoon.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is in error. The second most important person in the land is Williams—Rowan Williams, of course, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Of course a copy of the documents will be made available. But it is idle to attempt to have a debate on matters of importance when very few noble Lords are present. I respectfully suggest again that we ought to draw a line under this. I have taken note of what has been said and shall give it all appropriate attention.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. We were in the middle of a debate on the Water Bill. Two matters distress me enormously. The first is that this has happened in the way that it has. Whatever the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House has said, I hope that he does feel that it was perhaps an unwise way to treat this House. Secondly, his colleagues on the Benches behind him were very flippant. That is an attitude that is regrettable. To laugh at the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, as they did—one or two are shaking their heads, but some Members on the Benches opposite did—when she plainly explained that she was a comparative newcomer to the House and was seeking guidance, was a disgrace. I wish to record my regret on that point.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, may I just explain? I know that my colleagues were expressing support for the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am being told to leave the matter alone. So often in this House we are told to

443
leave matters alone. There is a time and place for everything. The way in which this news has been dealt out to us in the middle of a debate is appalling. I want to express my view on that and to express my distress at the attitude of Members opposite.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord gets to his feet and explains why things should change. I do not object to change. In fact, he and I voted for sensible change together—we Welsh. What I object to is the way in which this has been done. By all means, appoint a new Lord Chancellor; then, you say: "We have proposals to do things in this sort of way". The matter is then debated properly, people have their say and it goes through the normal process.
What offends me very deeply is the high-handed, almost Saddamesque way of treating the British constitution. I do not think I have ever been so angry in the 30 years I have been in this House. I love this House. I love the constitution of this country. I love a balanced Whig arrangement. But to be treated like this! A Member on the Benches opposite said in a barracking way, "Shut up!"—in that lovely, old-fashioned House of Commons tradition that we all love and revere, but let us please not treat the constitution in the way it is being treated. Let us not treat this House in the way it is being treated. Let us not just play Pooh-sticks with 800 years of British liberty. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
6.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 81.

Division No. 5

CONTENTS

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Freyberg, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Byford, B.

Marlesford, L.

Colwyn, L.

Montrose, D.

Cooke of Thorndon, L.

Newton of Braintree, L

Cumberlege, B.

Northesk, E.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Norton of Louth, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Onslow, E.[Teller]

Elton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Erroll, E.

Renton, L.

Fowler, L.

Trefgarne, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Borrie, L.

Addington, L.

Bragg, L

Alli, L.

Brennan, L.

Amos, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L

Andrews, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Burlison, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Carter, L.

Avebury, L.

Christopher, L.

Barker, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Crawley, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Blackstone, B.

David, B.

444

Davies of Oldham, L.

Lipsey, L.

Desai, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Donoughue, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.[Teller]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Dubs, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B

Elis-Thomas, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

MarandKellie, E.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Gale, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Northover, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Parekh, L.

Goudie, B.

Pendry. L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

RendellofBabergh, B.

Grenfell, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Rooker, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Russell, E.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Harrison, L.

ShuttofGreetland, L.

Hayman, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Whitaker, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Whitty, L.

Hoyle, L.

Wilkins, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

King of West Bromwich, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
7.9 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I had concluded moving Amendment No. 33 and had just sat down.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. The intervening excitement took away from the fact that she had finished speaking. No other noble Lord appears to wish to speak.
Amendment No. 33 deals with Clause 27, which introduces a new power for the agency to revoke, after 2012, any permanent licence causing serious damage to the environment, without payment of compensation. There would be a right of appeal to the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales.
This amendment would extend the provision to some time-limited licences. However, such time-limited licences will already have been subject to rigorous scrutiny by the Environment Agency when they were issued. It is fair to say that the holders of such time-limited licences are entitled to confidence in the agency's decision. It is right that the agency. in turn, should carry the responsibility if the decision subsequently requires review before the licence expires.
There should be no cases where such serious environmental damage arises from a time-limited licence. The essence of a time-limited regime is that it facilitates gradual small-scale adjustments needed to deal with changing environmental factors such as climate change. In the unlikely event of serious damage arising from a time-limited licence that was based on Environment Agency conditions, it is right that the holder should be entitled to receive

445
compensation on the basis of a licence that was granted by the Environment Agency's decision in the first place.
Government policy is to encourage the holders of permanent licences to agree to their voluntary conversion to time-limited status, as we debated earlier. One of the attractions of doing so is that holders would have both notice and compensation were those licences to be revoked. The amendment would cut across the incentive to convert to time-limited licences. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. It was much clearer than his reply to a similar amendment in Committee. I hope that his optimism about people converting to time-limited licences is borne out. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Byfordmoved Amendment No. 34:
Page 32, line 26, at end insert "; and
( ) the licence holder has been informed of the nature of this serious damage and allowed a minimum of six months to devise a means of reducing it to the point where it is no longer serious."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment requires that a licence holder has been informed of the nature of the serious damage and allowed a minimum of six months to devise a means of reducing it to the point where it is no longer serious.
Will the Minister define "serious" as used in Clause 27(1)(d)? In Committee, he said:
"The definitions of 'serious damage' under this clause and elsewhere will be set out in detailed guidance".—[Official Report, 3/4/03; col. GC 178.]
After our discussions earlier today, he will not be surprised that I shall push him to define it here rather than wait until regulation. I should hate to think that the comment is founded upon the Government's inability to provide a definition—though I note that Hansard uses the plural, "definitions". If it is not possible for the Minister to tell us today what is meant. I have no doubt that it should be done later, because it affects the clause directly. The clause would otherwise become a meaningless jumble of words, the net effect of which is to allow the authorities to revoke abstraction rights without compensation.
In reading Hansard, at cols. GC 176–179 of the Official Report of 3rd April 2003, I was struck by the stress placed by the Minister on the costs to the agency. He confirms that compensation is such a cost that it is part of the administrative cost, and that it has to be recovered if the agency is to fulfil its duty of recovering all its costs from abstractors. He extols the Government's clause because it,
"limits the number of occasions that compensation would be payable. Therefore, it would reduce the degree to which any charge would fall on other abstractors".
446
Yet, two sentences later, he says:
"The clause … would reduce the burden on the Environment Agency's budget because compensation would not be payable in those circumstances".—[Official Report, 3/4/03; cols. GC 177–178.]
I am sure that the agency has formulated a definition of "serious"; and that it must at least have estimated the number of abstractions that are causing "serious damage" and should not attract compensation. Will the Minister tell us whether that is a matter of five, 10 or 20 claims, and the estimate of revocations that under the clause would not qualify for any payment? Will he also provide the estimated savings that will result?
I have again received a briefing from the National Farmers Union, which states:
"The use of the phrase 'serious damage' is not yet strictly defined and, as such, the NFU feels that abstractors are unable to make a judgement on whether their present abstraction activities are causing this level of damage and what remedial action can be taken. The withdrawal of an abstraction licence should surely be the ultimate sanction, backed up by robust and transparent evidence of the quantifiable damage, especially when the right of the abstractor to compensation for such an action is to be questioned. The NFU welcomes the suggestion that an arbitrator should be employed to settle any dispute arising from the withdrawal of an abstraction licence(s) under those circumstances".
I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I am uneasy about the amendment. If it would mean that damage, which could be serious, could continue for six months—therefore having an even more serious effect—I should be uneasy if it were carried.
I have no commercial interest, but I am involved in several conservation organisations, including the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust, of which I am president. I am aware that in many parts of the country, a great deal of damage has been done. with the loss of wetland habitat during the past 40 to 50 years. If present levels of abstraction of water continue, damage will continue in many parts of the country.
To allow serious damage to continue for six months—or even six days—can be harmful. Of course, there may be argument about what is serious. Some members of the National Farmers Union may not consider certain action serious, where ardent conservationists would. I trust that the Government will not be generous to the amendment, if it means that damage that is recognised and understood is allowed to continue while someone is given six months to find a way to reduce the level of damage to slightly less than it was before.
One major purpose of the Bill is to serve the cause of conservation and the English environment. That needs protection; as I read it, the amendment could be utterly counterproductive.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Hardy that when "serious"—however that is defined—damage is caused or threatened, to give six months leeway is not appropriate in any circumstances. In any case, there is a slight

447
misunderstanding here. If the aim of the amendment is to try to move to a more voluntary system of reducing or avoiding serious damage, it would not achieve that.
Clause 27 as drafted will come into operation only when a damaging licence has already been revoked. It deals with the consequential issue of compensation. It also assumes that that revocation will have occurred only when the damage has actually been done, whereas, on occasion, revocation will occur where damage is threatened, in order to prevent such damage. As my noble friend Lord Hardy said, were we to allow another six months, it is even more certain that the damage would either not be avoided or would have even worse effect.
The clause will have no effect until after July 2012. We hope to have dealt by then with many, if not most, of the problems associated with damaging licences. We also envisage that, by then, the most significant licences will have transferred from being permanent to being time-limited and subject to the sustainability criteria for the longer term. In those circumstances, with a time-limited licence, the clause would not apply. As I said in the debate on the previous amendment, the fact that the clause would not apply should be seen as an incentive to transfer from a permanent licence to a time-limited licence.
The clause would be used only as a last resort and only after 2012, if remaining permanent licensees were causing serious damage or if it could be shown that they would cause serious damage. The noble Baroness challenged me to define "serious". She cannot be serious—in the sense that the term "serious" is used throughout legislation, and, should further elaboration be used, it is always provided in guidance. That will be the case here. There will be different circumstances and different sorts of serious damage that cannot be defined in the Bill, but examples of the kind of damage that we are talking about can be given in guidance.
I hope that, with the description of the limited circumstances in which it would arise and no compensation paid beyond 2012, the noble Baroness will be reassured that it is not a threat to most licensees in any circumstances. If there is a problem with permanent licensees after 2012, it is right that the Environment Agency should have the right to intervene without incurring claims for compensation. Allowing another six months before the revocation became effective would aggravate the situation, rather than resolving it.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. In a minute, I shall return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath. By not defining "serious" or not giving some guidance, the Government raise the question of how judgments are to be made if there is no definition of anything. I hope that I can tempt the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, to add it to her list of definitions, if we manage, at some stage, to get some guidance on it.
448
The Minister said that the clause would not come into effect until 2012. I accept that, but we are dealing with the Bill now. We are not dealing with what might happen in 2012. We are dealing with the Bill as it is today. If the Government wanted to, they could introduce a sunset amendment to make sure that we had time to find out exactly what sort of definition we wanted. I am not exactly thrilled by the Minister's answer, however kindly he put it. I was serious about "serious", and I hope that, in the mean time. we will have a chance to revisit the matter.
I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, that, earlier this afternoon, we considered the whole question of the need to protect the environment. I have said clearly that we would not support any damage being done. It is a question of where the balance lies. If some damage is being done and is seen to be done, it should be stopped straightaway. That is why the degree of seriousness is important. If the damage is acutely serious, it must be dealt with straightaway. There would be no question that my amendment would detract from that. If it is serious but could be put right in, say, a month or two months—
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. She said one month or two months; the amendment states a minimum of six months. That suggests that for a minimum of six months damage would continue or the consequences of damage would be even further extended.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, perhaps I may just suggest to the noble Lord that there are issues here concerning the environment which one could not actually see. If the damage was not very serious—as alluded to by my noble friend—there could be a period in which it would not be seen in less than six months. For example, there could be a seasonal effect. We just cannot be hung up on these phrases, but certainly, at the beginning of today's discussions, we were all of one mind about the problems of the environment and the necessity to keep that central in our minds.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, perhaps I might finish what I was trying to say. This is my difficulty with the definition of "serious". If the damage was what I would call a serious issue that, let us say, could be dealt with within a month, or that the Environment Agency was happy that it was dealt with in the immediacy and then took time to correct the rest of it during the following months, that is the thought behind this amendment. It is not saying to whoever it might he, "You have got six months and you needn't do anything about it at all". I think that the noble Lord has slightly interpreted my amendment in that way. It certainly is not, in any way, meant to do that.
That is why I come back to the need to define "serious". I believe that it is a serious problem, but I obviously do not intend to divide the House at this time of night. That would be very serious. I think that

449
it is something which needs to be addressed; for us to be able to look and say, "How can we best help preserve our wildlife and everything else that goes on, yet not cut the ground underneath people but give them the opportunity to put something right if it is being dealt with in a way which the Environment Agency considers is suitable". That is my dilemma and why I moved this amendment. I hope that the Government might give further thought to it before we meet at Third Reading. If no more noble Lords have any comments to make, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps we may complete Amendment No. 36 because some of the speakers for the Unstarred Question debate are not in the Chamber. We are unable to start until 7.30 p.m. if they are not here.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domermoved Amendment No. 36:
Before Clause 28, insert the following new clause—
"GENERAL PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO WATER
In section 6(2)(b) of the Environment Act 1995 (c. 25), at end insert "in particular the efficient use of water by all abstractors"."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 36 is grouped with the response of the Government to this amendment—that is, Amendment No. 160—and our new Amendment No. 160A. It does not appear on the grouping list but, with the leave of the House, it would be helpful to discuss it with the other two amendments.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, with the leave of the House and the agreement of the noble Baroness, it would be helpful if we could degroup Amendments Nos. 160, 160A and 160B. There is an amendment in her name to my amendment and an amendment also, of which I was not fully aware earlier today, tabled by the noble Baroness, to my amendment. When I come to deal with the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, it would be better to move to something in the area which is covered by those three amendments rather than pursue this one. But it would be better to do that in its place when we reach it on another day.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, in view of the confusion as regards amendments and the grouping list, I consider that we would be better served to leave this group for another time.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Developing Countries: Poverty
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Whitakerrose to ask Her Majesty's Government how they can help the developing countries in poverty which lack strong funding relationships with donor countries or international institutions.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, when I went to Niger, it was the second poorest country in the world. Its per capita income was 200 dollars. The adult female literacy rate, a strong indicator of the basis of development, was just over 8 per cent. Yet it receives only 25 dollars in development aid per person per year. France, the main donor, dropped its aid to Niger from over 115 million dollars in 1997 to under 40 million dollars in 2001.
Mali's income is 360 dollars and its aid 36 dollars per person per year—a bit better, but that is mainly in aid tied to French products, and Mali is democratic and pretty low on corruption. As Paul Collier and David Dollar say in a very interesting book on aid allocation, which I shall refer to again, Mali's ability to save and invest, evident from its reasonable standard of governance, which I also saw personally, may be undermined by its poverty, which is so great that foreign investment is deterred. Surely that is a good case for aid to encourage economic growth.
Last autumn I went with UNICEF to Laos, not quite so far down the aid agenda, but with a particular problem in that there are unexploded American bombs and landmines throughout. US ordnance-clearing aid, I was told, equates in about a year only to what was spent in one day on aerial bombardment. Total development aid went down by a quarter over the years 1999 to 2001 and, as I saw. the paucity of any kind of paid work meant that hundreds of its young people were sucked into exploited labour and prostitution in neighbouring Thailand. UNICEF, which took me there, does a magnificent job in helping to recover and train these children, but the inability of the Laos Government on its own to create economic growth and employment means that trafficking happens over and over again, often to the same children.
Should we bother about gaps in aid? After all, economic growth is what lifts countries out of poverty and foreign direct investment and remittances from migrants both do more for economic growth than aid does. But it is of course aid which helps ensure the basis to attract that investment, a healthy and literate population with a modicum of good governance and a minimum of corruption. The findings of Collier and Dollar show that poor countries are held back by a governance gap rather than a financing gap. DfID has produced a very interesting booklet called Promoting Institutional and Organisational Growth to disseminate just that expertise.
I do not need to rehearse the links often described in your Lordships' House between extreme poverty, armed conflict with its preponderance of civilian casualties, unmanageable large movements of

451
refugees, mainly to other poor countries, destabilising them, as in Cote d'Ivoire, people smuggling and trafficking, and organised crime. It is in the interest of the most narrowly conceived external policy to reduce extreme poverty.
There seem to be three major reasons why some needy countries miss out disproportionately. I am most grateful to Peter Grant of DfID for his illuminating discussion of these. First, proportionate assistance to a large, poor country could skew the budget of any donor. Bangladesh receives only nine dollars per head per year in development aid as a result. One must ask: is the World Bank's cap on absolute sums right?
Secondly. one of the world's big multilateral players, the European Commission, does not target poverty. Less than 50 per cent of its development assistance goes to low income countries. The EC favours its own back door, East and Central Europe and North Africa. Thus it does not take a global view even of the situation of Europe. I congratulate my noble friend on the Government's pressure for the Convention on the Future of Europe to make poverty eradication the principal objective of EU development policy. Can she say what progress is being made?
The third reason is history. For instance, the UK aids the Commonwealth; the French do most in their former empire. There is a point in that. If there are links and networks, donors have a better chance of' making aid well-informed and making it work. But of course it is partial.
Indeed, some bilateral donors who do not act from a post-imperial sense of responsibility appear to take the eradication of poverty less seriously than other objectives. The USA still goes in for tied aid which hugely benefits its own producers at the expense of best value and local procurement for the recipients; or it furthers political objectives, as in the Middle East and, indeed, in central and eastern Europe. Let us hope that President Bush's most welcome commitment to the relief of HIV/AIDS in Africa is a new departure.
In any case, history can do little for countries with no conqueror, such as Ethiopia; or for those whose conqueror was impoverished by its own imperial efforts, such as Angola. It is all a bit of a lottery. And that lottery is also compounded, for when countries have sclerotic or corrupt governments it is hard to know how to make aid work. Or when their intellectual and professional resource leaves or is driven out or annihilated, as in parts of south-east Asia, their capacity for nation building is weak.
Riches in the form of natural resources can actually be a curse in that the greed they inspire can destabilise an immature polity. Poor countries are prone to war and rich countries do not like to pour money into arsenal economies. The strategic importance of a country may make its "aidability" strangely fluid. There was quite an increase in US aid to Guinea when a seat on the Security Council came its way.
NGOs do wonderful work in these areas but their resources are tiny compared to governments.
452
Do the UN, the World Bank, the IMF, regional development banks, the EC and donor governments need to work together more to share out aid better? That would be better done on a rights basis in any case, but that is for another debate. Would it not be better to have more representatives of developing countries in the multilateral organisations? The Government—DfID—have appreciated that there should be a proper means of funding the attendance and advocacy capacity at the WTO of countries too poor to do it themselves. Should this be extended to G8, the IMF, the World Bank and other decision-making bodies?
My right honourable friend the Chancellor proposed a doubling of aid to developing countries, innovatively financed by an international financing facility. This gained ground at Evian. How should it be distributed?
Finally, a few other things that the international and regional institutions might focus on: the striking results from concentrated aid in poor countries with good management; the enormous importance of trade for growth and the consequent message that multilateral organisations might link-in aid more with efforts on macro and sectoral policies to improve market access; their firmer independence from big power political influence, following Joseph Stiglitz's interesting account of the need to reform.
I have not offered developed solutions. My purpose is to air a problem so that more expert heads can do a bit of brainstorming over the best way forward. I therefore look forward very much to hearing the distinguished speakers to follow and to the response of my noble friend the Secretary of State.
7.39 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, the noble Baroness has certainly aired the problem. My congratulations to her for asking one of the most fundamental, almost unanswerable, questions: why can we not help the very poor? I expect the Government to admit that they cannot, because plainly we will not meet the millennium development goals. Many of the poorest—the figure used to be as high as 40 per cent—are out of reach of government services. So the simplest answer is: we cannot help those we cannot reach if we are using a government structure. But there is another version of this argument which I heard, perhaps surprisingly, through the organisation CARE International—that is, we cannot help the helpless. Unless there is a sustainable project, aid will be useless. It will he like pouring money into sand.
I know CARE International has successfully planted trees in Niger in very difficult conditions, but only because local people look after the trees and keep the goats off. This is now the fashionable concept of sustainability, which of course requires a process of evaluation. It guides governments and NGOs alike; it pleases auditors, trustees and donors. Yet it can also be a useful means of avoiding our obligations to reach the very poorest. Can one imagine poverty reduction today without rapid rural appraisals, household surveys, livelihood monitoring or coping mechanisms?

453
There is a complex apparatus of aid which, while suiting donors and some governments, encumbers the poorest countries most.
We donors meet in various disguises, as the G8, the EU, the DAC/Paris Club, World Bank, IMF, or via one of the UN agencies. When the host countries admit that they cannot cope with the jargon, let alone the policies, we send out technical experts and call it capacity-building. They are the new aid bureaucracy. They are expert in transparency, debt relief, good governance, conflict resolution, and so the list goes on—laudable ambitions, trumpeted by the international financial institutions on our behalf.
At the same time, these countries are being saddled with poverty reduction strategy papers—the new form of structural adjustment which is the latest straitjacket of development because governments have little choice if they are to receive aid such as IDA lending or, still more, budgetary support. The influence of donors through this process cannot be exaggerated. Some 26 countries have already published the PRSPs and another 20 have published interim papers. Over half the countries regarded as the poorest are benefiting from IDA lending.
In the past, donors have been frustrated by host government departments, especially the red tape involved. In the end, such departments were bypassed. The more powerful aid agencies like UNICEF set up their own separate projects with their own identity, infrastructure, even territory. Any new funding—we have the example of HIV/AIDS today—risks introducing such an empire of aid-giving, sometimes regardless of, and even in competition with, the existing, usually rather fragile primary healthcare structure.
I admire the commitment of many individuals in the UN and the larger NGOs. I count friends among them. But I have come to recognise how well our own society is served by these well paid aid workers, consultants and experts, not to mention the drug companies and the manufacturers, while the local communities they were assisting have often, in the end, been left to fend for themselves.
This is where aid funding has gone wrong. And DfID, to its credit, has recognised the limitations of such assistance. In countries where it has developed a strong aid partnership, it has moved towards programme aid and budgetary support so as to reinforce government services. Where possible, it has strengthened the capacity of the local NGOs and the more rigorous areas of civil society, such as the judicial system in countries like Rwanda and Uganda. Yet it cannot extend this support to the poorest countries or those communities in conflict, as in Nepal, Sudan, or even parts of India, which still contain some of the world's very poorest. Using NGOs will not be enough to reach the very poor, except for limited operations, and in some areas where they are well integrated in local civil society.
One main advantage of the PRSP process, which I readily accept, is that it requires the participation of civil society. Preliminary research by the Overseas
454
Development Institute shows how intricate the detail of the process has become. It is difficult to monitor the extent and degree of public participation, but that is a task that has to be done.
One way of reaching the very poorest, which has been explored by Christian Aid in an internal discussion paper, may be through decentralisation and devolution using the PRSP process. Much could be achieved through a discussion about effective participation of civil society in local decision-making alongside elected representatives. As I frequently do, I am thinking of African countries in that context. Some research has been done into participation in countries such as Bolivia, Uganda and Malawi. It would be interesting to know from the noble Baroness whether the Government have explored the issue in the context of aid funding within the PRSPs.
One country with a light touch, where I believe that these ideas could be explored, is Mozambique, where the department is working at various levels. With donor encouragement, Mozambique has embarked very confidently on its own PRSP, know as the PARPA. It is designed to ensure that civil society is fully involved, that local NGOs are supported, and that an emerging democracy ensures accountability, transparency and improved fiscal arrangements as well as good governance—whatever that word means precisely.
So far, so good. However, there are strong vested interests in those countries. One is the presence of foreign companies, notably the shareholders in Mozambique in MOZAL and the South Africa rail link through the Maputo corridor. That will inevitably reinforce power in Maputo at the expense of the north, which is a classic divide in many countries. Human rights NGOs, rural development agencies and a few opposition politicians will have a hard time representing minorities and communities, some of which will run counter to government doctrine.
Mozambique is a country crying out for a stronger media and civil society to protect the new constitution and the interests of ordinary people and prevent a return to conflict. The building of an aid bureaucracy, unless it can reinforce local civil society and local government in parallel, outside the capital, may be identified with the centre and so prevent a new society from emerging.
Finally, I fully agree with objective le, which the noble Baroness mentioned, that EU aid to the low income countries should increase to 70 per cent by 2006. However, we are still a very long way from that. I congratulate the noble Baroness on her new departmental report, which is readable and gives an honest account of such objectives, thereby helping parliamentarians.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper draws attention to a very real, but not much noticed or remedied problem—the plight of the considerable number of developing countries, many of them small in size or population, which

455
simply slip through the net of support for lack of strong funding relationships with donor counties or international institutions. Some of those countries have found themselves neglected because they do not fit into the pattern of post-colonial relationships with former metropolitan powers, which are still quite influential; others because of the lack of a strong, purposeful regional grouping to which they can belong and from which they can draw help and advice; and others—but here the attribution of cause and effect is not easy or uncontroversial—because their poverty has led to a breakdown of civil society, of law and order and, in some cases, of any vestige of central government at all. In those cases, the international community has despaired of being able to pursue any development policies beyond simple humanitarian relief. I know that there is an argument that says that some of these countries have got there because of conflict. I do not wish to attribute precisely the cause and the effect. The outcome is, alas, all too clear.
Examples of those phenomena are not hard to find, particularly, but not exclusively, in Africa. Afghanistan, before Al'Qaeda and the Taliban put them back on the development community's map, was one of them. Somalia was, and remains, another—as does Liberia. Rwanda and Burundi before their experience with genocidal strife were precisely in that situation. All these were countries where the main donors had largely given up or had never been that much interested in the first place. But look at the consequences, not just in terms of human suffering and loss of life, but also of regional destabilisation—in Central Asia, in the Great Lakes region of Africa, in West Africa and in the Horn of Africa, for example; and look too at the cost to aid programmes of redressing this neglect when eventually we all got round to doing something about it; and look too at the havens that have been and still are being provided for terrorism. That is surely enough to show that the cost of failure and neglect is very real and that it falls not only on the countries concerned but also on the wider international community.
0f course I am not suggesting that nothing has been done, or at least attempted, to deal with the problems of these countries. The United Nations, with the various initiatives directed at the LLDCs—the least less developed counties—has tried; so has the Commonwealth with the focus on its smaller, less viable members; and NePAD—the new African initiative which was debated in this House a couple of weeks ago—is also trying to address the same problem. But what I fear we do have to accept, if we are being honest with ourselves, is that none of these initiatives and efforts has been particularly effective; and none has even begun to get to grips and to eliminate the problem. So we do, surely, need to think again; to analyse carefully why efforts so far have failed in these sorts of countries; and to consider whether we cannot find new remedies.
One problem, I fear. is the tendency of all aid administrations, and many development economists too, to concentrate their attention and efforts on the larger problems and the larger countries. There are
456
perfectly respectable arguments for doing so. It is not difficult to demonstrate that concentration of really substantial resources on a limited number of recipients brings better results than what would be pejoratively described as a scattergun approach. But such concentration comes at a cost, as we have seen, and a cost that can be very heavy. I would welcome some comment from the Secretary of State, whose presence to reply to this debate I warmly welcome, on this unavoidable tension and on how DfID sees ways of resolving it.
Where should we be looking for remedies? Clearly in the trade field, where the World Trade Organisation's Doha development round is in full but not altogether promising swing already. It may seem a hit quixotic to think of some of these neglected countries benefiting from international trade at all; but, if we take that view, they will be condemned to eternal dependence on aid, and that will be a disaster. So we must help them build capacity in the trade field and devise even more ways of ensuring that what they do produce reaches our markets and that they do receive a fair return for it.
Secondly, we must act on debt, where we are often—and we need to recognise this—dealing with countries whose ability to undertake sustained programmes of structural adjustment is very slight. Thirdly, we must do what we can to strengthen regional and sub-regional organisations which can often provide more politically acceptable assistance than can the main donors and the major global institutions. Fourthly, we must work to make the European Union's aid effort—which continues to grow steadily, and will now increasingly do so with the enlargement of the new members which have not hitherto been much involved in the aid business—more effective and more sensitive to the problems that this short debate has highlighted.
7.55 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for providing us with the opportunity to debate this important issue.
I shall concentrate my remarks on the situation in Angola and on the case for reviewing our donor relationship with that country, particularly in regard to the urgent and immediate need to prevent the spread there of HIV/AIDS. At the same time I recognise the need to avoid colluding with a government who historically have not attended to the needs of their people.
I am informed in correspondence with the Minister that the rate of HIV/AIDS infection in Angola is in the region of 5.5 per cent. That is an approximate figure as statistics are very hard to glean in that country. That contrasts with an incidence of over 20 per cent in several neighbouring southern African countries. According to the Children on the Brink report published in 2002, a joint USAID/UNICEF/UNAIDS publication, there were 84,000 AIDS orphans in Angola; in other words, children who have lost either one or both parents to AIDS. The figure could double by 2005 and jump to almost half a million by 2010 if no action is taken to reduce HIV infection. There is a

457
brief window—which I shall describe later in more detail—to minimise the impact of HIV/AIDS on Angola.
Angola is endowed with large resources of oil and diamonds. It has had a thriving agricultural economy in the past and is well watered. Its revenues from oil are set to double over the next five years. At the same time Angola is recovering from over 25 years of civil war. About 500,000 UNITA soldiers and their families are being resettled. Hundreds of thousands of refugees are returning. More than a million people driven from the land by war are returning to their homes. Last year's cease-fire precipitated a further humanitarian crisis as areas that were previously inaccessible were opened up. Last year two million Angolans were dependent for survival on food from the World Food Programme.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, mentioned, it appears that Angola's mineral wealth has had a negative impact on the prosperity of the general population. Lacking strong rule of law, oil prospers only those powerful enough to command its revenues. The UK and the international community are loath to assist Angola financially as Angola has the means to meet her own needs. Should one provide financial assistance to a wealthy nation whose people suffer from poverty? The UK's answer has been a gentle affirmative. We are Angola's largest bilateral donor, providing support for the Luanda Urban Poverty Project. We meet the poorest people's need for clean water and food security in such a way as also to promote grassroots co-operation and grassroots political awareness. Recently I visited a co-operative which the Luanda Urban Poverty Project supports. It comprises a group of women who buy food together and, therefore, obtain it at a reduced price. There is a gradual building of political awareness in such deprived communities.
At the same time Her Majesty's Government urge the Government of Angola to be more transparent in their financial dealings. International partners and international institutions sustain that pressure. Her Majesty's Government have emphasised the key role that they see for Angola in supporting the development of Africa. The noble Baroness demonstrated the importance she attaches to Angola by making two recent visits to that country. However, for all the reasons I have given, Her Majesty's Government are reluctant to accede to Angola's wish for an early donor conference, perhaps in September of this year, to support projects to consolidate Angola's peace.
HIV/AIDS is set to sweep through Angola as it has through its neighbours. Some 200,000 refugees are set to return from Zambia, a country with a seroprevalence rate of about 30 per cent. Long-distance lorry routes are opening up as mines are cleared from the roads in the country. They convey lorry drivers from Namibia and southern Africa, where there are very high rates of HIV/AIDS infection.
458
More than 75 per cent of Angolans are under 25. It is a very youthful nation, and it is the young who are most likely to contract and transmit the disease.
The president of Angola has put his personal authority behind the fight against HIV/AIDS. In that, he has shown leadership that, sadly, many of his peers across sub-Saharan Africa have lacked. The media in Angola are alive with hard-hitting campaigns on HIV/ AIDS. Although the response of the Angolan Government has been disappointing in the past, I warmly welcome the recent news that the first phase of the new national strategic plan has just been completed. I am also pleased to learn that the government of Angola have submitted an application to the global fund for AIDS, TB and malaria for 58 million dollars. The government of Angola have committed their own funding in the action against AIDS. Sadly, that is rather an exceptional case, but it is to be welcomed.
The current situation could not be more critical. Put very simply, there are large population movements across and within Angola, and there is little awareness of HIV/AIDS outside Luanda. Condoms are scarcely available in the rural areas. Unless immediate action is taken, Angola may shortly engage in a second civil war, a war against AIDS that may negate any peace dividend and that may keep Angolans in extreme poverty for years to come. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that Her Majesty's Government recognise the current brief window of opportunity to minimise the impact of HIV/AIDS in Angola?
What more financial assistance might Her Majesty's Government consider providing to Angola to minimise the inevitable rise in HIV/AIDS infection? Evidently, there is the need to inform the population and increase access to condoms. That must he the first priority. However, HIV/AIDS is also a reflection of poverty, the inadequate health systems. the social injustice that obliges women to provide sexual services to men on a large scale, and the lack of a rudimentary education.
Children need adequate health systems so that their infected parents can endure long enough to see them into adulthood. Infants need to be protected from mother-to-child transmission by effective drugs, advice and healthcare. The extended families and communities in which orphans are raised need to be supported. AIDS sufferers need access to counselling, drugs and healthcare. It is very sad to visit such sufferers in Angola and see what little support there is for them.
Will the Secretary of State use every opportunity for discussion with the government of Angola to encourage their work in that area? Will she ensure that HIV/AIDS permeates all our responses and support in Angola? Furthermore, will she use dialogue with the government of Angola to ensure that implementation takes place of the strategy that they have now produced?
My time is at an end. I look forward to the Secretary of State's response.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Whitaker for having proposed a fairly precise subject. It is not a general question about development aid or rural poverty, but is specifically about countries that lack a funding relationship with donor countries or international institutions.
In a way, it is like the problem that we often face; namely, of helping poor people within our own country. We try to do it through tax credits, or through other benefits. But if someone is not in the labour market and cannot qualify for benefit under one grant or another, or will not submit himself to be means-tested for benefit, he cannot be helped. We must devise new ways outside the conventional picture of how poverty is removed in order to help these people.
One of the most helpful aspects of this evening's debate—indeed, I almost felt the ghost of Lord Bauer hovering over us one year after his death—is the fact that we have all become so much more aware that aid is not a simple nor very often an effective way to tackle poverty. We cannot tackle it by just saying that money should be made available.
If we set criteria for the giving of aid, as regards applying for it and qualifying for it—criteria which, I am afraid, have become more elaborate—that requires a degree of sophistication at the receiving end that the poorest may not often have. In a sense, we now seem to overlay the agenda. We impose so many conditions on those countries that receive money: they have to be gender sensitive; poor people must participate directly; they must have sustainability; they must have environmental friendliness; and they must have transparency, accountability, and so on. Civil society must also participate. We take it for granted that every country has a civil society. I do not see why we should do that, just because we have text books with diagrams and statements on society.
When aid is given, it should be given by one government to another or by one corporate organisation to another. Very often, problems arise at both ends. They arise at the giver's end because the motives of a giving government are bound to be mixed. They do not just want to help the poor; they want to receive some credit for doing so. There might be a diplomatic or international relations angle involved, or they might want to sell arms or other products. You cannot fault a democratic government for wanting to get a bang for its buck, which can distort aid. As for the receiving end, not all countries or states necessarily rule in the interests of their people. That is a shocking comment to make, but that is the way it is.
I have long argued that, as far as possible, aid should not be given directly to governments; it should be given to NGOs at home, or in the receiving country. I know that there are problems in that respect, because there may not be NGOs in the country concerned. Very often, only very well directed aid, administered by people on the ground who know the facts, will work. The same applies at the giving end. If somehow we could remove governments from the scene and make it an arm's length operation whereby money would be
460
put into some big account and then distributed on criteria that are simple but—it is to be hoped—objective, we might improve our ability to control the usefulness of aid.
The problem remains that the poorest of the poor countries may still not benefit. What we probably need is an expanded funding facility—something that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has proposed. We ought to issue what I would call "human development bonds", which should, if possible, be cancelled on the principle that recipient countries would never have to pay back the money. We should be able to give these countries money—not expertise, capacity or building, just straight money. We ought to say to them: "Here is money. You do not have to pay it back. We will service your debt. We will take the debt as ours, not yours, and give you this money". The proviso could be a simple efficacy criterion, such as a 1 per cent improvement on the human development index in five years—just one simple device.
We make the problem of receiving or administering aid very difficult. Some years ago, the LSE Centre for the Study of Global Governance, of which I happen to be the director, issued a research report based on the findings of Dr Lily Nicholls. She visited UNDP offices and headquarters in Africa asking people what the difficulty was. It was that people in New York went on adding new desirable objectives that had to be achieved. The recipients could not understand how to cope with the multiple objectives and targets set.
If we think of our own historical development process, or that of any developed country, none of the criteria was fulfilled: we were not transparent; we were not accountable; we did not always participate; we were not ecologically friendly; we were not gender sensitive; we were not democratic; and we were not non-corrupt. Why, just because we give a pittance to other people, do we expect such bossy behaviour to be received properly? I do not understand why we think that it will be effective in removing poverty, whatever desire we have to show that we are virtuous.
I would love to think that if we could give money—perhaps not to governments but directly to the citizens of poor countries—it could somehow enable them to make their own effort to get out of poverty. We are not giving enough attention to how poor people get themselves out of poverty. We always assume that we must do it for them. So we have policies that restrict labour migration, whereas it has been one of the most effective ways by which people have got themselves out of poverty. People living in a poor region have got out of poverty by leaving that region and going somewhere else where there are better job opportunities. We think, "No, the poor can stay where they are and we will give them resources"—and, of course, we do not give them resources. We do not let them move and we do not let them trade. We have to re-examine this policy.
In specific answer to the Question put by the noble Baroness I still say that if we could find a simple device—let us say, of giving each citizen in the poorest countries of the world one dollar a week, not even a

461
day, no questions asked, and making quite sure that it goes to the citizen, I think we could do more than by doing anything else.
People often say, "These problems are not solved by throwing money at them". I say, "Just try".
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, does that mean that we must do away with economists and accountants?
Lord Desai: Absolutely, my Lords, and experts—and, it is to be hoped, statistics, which I have made my living from teaching and compiling. The noble Earl complained about bureaucracy. Let us get rid of all the intermediaries and give money directly to the people and see what they do with it. It might benefit them. I would benefit if someone gave me money!
8.14 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, peaked in about the seventh minute. I commend the seventh minute to your Lordships' attention. After that, it became slightly haphazard. But the Lord loveth a cheerful giver, and I am sure that he loves the noble Lord, Lord Desai.
The world has shrunk astonishingly since I was born into it—and even more astonishingly since the Secretary of State was born into it. I join other noble Lords in welcoming her presence in marking the importance of this debate, which is far greater than the number of noble Lords present signifies or the attention that the subject is likely to receive outside.
When I was a child and a young man, the world was a solid rock platform from which one occasionally looked up to see an interesting collection of tiny scintillating lights and then got on with one's own local affairs. Since then, we have seen the world from space and we realise that we are surrounded not my tiny moats of dust but by millions of suns, all bigger than ours. We are not on a solid rock platform but on something more like a fragile raft in a perilous and lonely sea. We share that raft with the rest of the human race, which puts the debate into perspective. We were once able to see only those countries on our own side of the sphere, which meant that every country on the other side was reduced to merely a shape on a map and every condition to a statistic on a table.
The statistics have become frightening. I recently picked up a couple which shook me. I discovered that the average GDP per capita in a country such as Sierra Leone is one forty-ninth of what it is in this country and that the life expectancy of its children is less than half that in this country.
We can now see those statistics; they are faces on our television screens. Suddenly, those impersonal statistics have become as much our neighbours as did the man who fell among thieves become a neighbour to the man on the road to Damascus. We cannot therefore ignore them.
462
Today we are discussing the way in which we help those countries. I welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said about throwing money at the problem. While I confess that I know less about economics or aid than anyone else taking part in the debate, I believe that the focus of the debate is on the structures by which we can help these countries. That is not necessarily by giving them aid but by giving them a fair chance to take part in world trade.
That is currently achieved by representation at the World Trade Organisation. I recently picked up the report of the Economic Affairs Committee on globalisation. I read that Mike Moore, the Director-General of the WTO, indicated that 28 or 29 of its members were not represented in Geneva. He also indicated that the WTO attempted to respond to that uneven representation by funding poorer countries to attend meetings in Geneva twice a year.
Large countries have permanent representation on the WTO. I understand that the United States has about 40 representatives, half of whom are diplomats and trade delegates. The same applies to Europe. The United Kingdom has 15 to 20, of whom 10 are trade delegates. Bangladesh has only one representative and many countries have none. Merely to pop someone in twice a year and expect that to produce dividends for the country is ludicrous.
During debate on the G8 Statement, I suggested that we ought to consider something like Short money for countries which cannot be present in Geneva. That would enable them to be there on a permanent basis. Perhaps they should appear collectively—perhaps there should be a commonality, a group of these countries. They would then be able to have some influence. We already give a proportion of our aid to structural assistance, but I understand that that is given to the home countries, giving the basis on which they can obtain the information and administer grants. As I said, I am ignorant in this field but the Secretary of State will put me right. I am talking about addressing the problem at the WTO end, which is complementary, but the two together should make for effective representation.
Achieving change will be a slow process, considering the weight that is pitched against such countries and the fact that Europe is one of the most expensive places to produce sugar. Yet Europe produces 40 per cent of all world sugar exports. As a result of subsidy, we dump against the people in poor countries trying to produce it. That will take a long time to change.
There is, however, a still different picture. I speak of the moral position: I think it is unacceptable that we do nothing about this issue. We have to do something, for reasons obvious to anyone with a moral outlook, let alone a religious one. For those not concerned with that kind of issue, the stark fact is that a world which has such really repellent levels of wealth difference is a very unstable and unsafe world; but it is a very good world in which to recruit people to fly Jumbos into skyscrapers and claim that this somehow will redress the balance of wealth and power. So we have a purely material self-interest in addressing this problem.

463
That is a challenge to any government of any party because doing anything substantial about it will mean that we are less well off than we are now. It will cost us. Electorates do not like that. So, first, this requires courage in a government; secondly, there should be discussions between parties so that the matter is taken out of the electoral equation—I know I am talking about something almost impossible. Therefore, electors will know that voting for one party or another will not suddenly make them worse off because that party has a conscience about these matters and understands the threat to this country. Elections are fought on short-term issues and this is a very longterm issue.
Thirdly, the issue must be made more appealing in some way. I was caught by the idea of my noble friend Lord Saatchi of having a national holiday to mark the day on which one finishes working for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and starts working for oneself. I think that our party—and I commend other parties to do so also—should set a target in the next Parliament to bring that date back at least three days and to give the yield of one of those days to the kind of initiative I talked about—paying to help the less fortunate countries become more fortunate.
I thank the noble Baroness for bringing the matter forward. It is one of increasing and very great importance.
8.22 p.m.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for introducing this important and wide-ranging debate. As the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, has said, how we reach the poorest is indeed a fundamental question; and it is surely useful to return to such fundamental questions. Once again the expertise in your Lordships' House has been very evident in the wide-ranging brainstorming that has occurred.
The need for over-arching international organisations is borne out by the debate today. Such organisations may need reform and improvement; but if they were not there, we would need to invent them; and we should always be wary of undermining and circumventing them.
The very existence of the Millennium Development Goals reflect international concern about this area and helps us focus on how aid is targeted, even if we know that many of those goals will not be met by 2015. Progress can be seen, and these important targets must have helped us achieve what has been secured so far.
I share the enormous concern of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, about the way in which the tragedy of HIV/AIDS is plunging Africa, in particular, into worse problems.
The giving of aid has been a relatively recent historical development. Of course there are many factors in play. Those with an imperial past may well have stronger ties with their old colonies and seek to assist them first. But there are also many other political factors. Too often aid is tied to the interests of the donor countries. The EU's record in that area, as the noble Baroness, Lady
464
Whitaker, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, have said, has been highly unsatisfactory. There are a few welcome signs of that changing, arid I look forward to hearing from the Secretary of State how that is progressing. I should also like to know what proposals for reform of the CAP we might see coming down the track. As the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Elton, rightly said, trade rather than aid must be the key to development.
The United States has been quite blatant in its political use of aid. Thus an analysis of the £2.4 billion increase in aid announced by the Bush Administration earlier this year shows, for example, that one third of the total will go, not to health services or schools, but to supply foreign countries with US arms and training. So much for a budget that professed to "promote compassion".
We saw the use of the US aid budget in the run-up to the war in Iraq. Note the African Growth and Opportunity Act 2000, which allows eligible sub-Saharan countries duty-free and quota-free access to the American market. But a country can become eligible only if it,
"does not engage in activities that undermine United States national security or foreign policy interests".
That came into play as the US arm-twisted for support at the UN. I trust and believe that we did not do the same. Are we taking any action to encourage the United States to move away from such political approaches to aid?
However, as others have said, the relief of poverty may often depend a great deal on the nature of governance in particular countries or areas. Thus the people of Iraq were impoverished by sanctions imposed by Western powers. The greatest challenge for the international community is surely to help poor people living under oppressive regimes without assisting the governments that oppress them. That can clearly be seen in the cases of Burma or Zimbabwe. In Somalia, there is no formally recognised government, and the United Kingdom Government have made further aid contingent on the peace process making concrete advances and there being subsequent political progress. It is an understandable position, but one that leaves the Somali people in poverty.
Is it important to have links to donor countries? I shall take the example of Burundi, which does not have such links. Burundi is currently the third lowest ranked country on the human development index. Life expectancy dropped from 54 years in 1992 to just over 40 years by December 2002. It lacks attention from donor countries, and the funds pledged to it are pegged to the resolution of conflict; therefore, so far, less than a quarter of funds pledged have been released. Yet, clearly, aid could help to reduce the conflict in Burundi, so it is in a catch-22 situation. Certainly it might be argued that a donor country with a strong interest in Burundi would have worked out the areas in which a limited release of development aid could play a real role in bringing peace.

465
On the other hand, there can also be a danger that links may be too close. In the Great Lakes region, the issue is not that the states lack strong links to major donor countries so much as that there has been no consistency or co-ordination between major donors. For instance, the UK has been the largest bilateral donor to Rwanda and Uganda for some years but has had a very limited relationship with the DRC. France, on the other hand, has supported the DRC but not Rwanda and Uganda. Given that those three states have been in conflict with each other over the past few years, better co-ordination between the UK and France might have applied more effective pressure to end the conflict. But, due to historical reasons, the agendas of France and the UK have remained opposed and regional conflict has continued.
From a UK perspective, some argue that the close nature of the UK relationship with Rwanda and Uganda made the UK less sensitive about its engagement in the regional conflict than perhaps we should have been. So even close relationships, then, may not be the answer. Consistent interest—but a truly effective international perspective—is surely important. That is why in so many respects the decision by the United Nations Security Council to send peacekeeping forces to the DRC, to be carried out under EU auspices—the first time that that has been done outside Europe—is to be welcomed.
Again, if we consider HIPC countries, we find that they have a fairly strong relationship with the major donors, because they are required to work in partnership with creditors. However, the World Bank itself, in a recent report, admits that donors need to take a more active role. Consistent attention is not necessarily given. The World Bank is itself considering what it defines as low-income countries under stress to address the particular problems of the poorest and least developed countries which suffer from conflict and poor governance. It proposes to facilitate change, but not necessarily through increasing lending. Various transitional measures are proposed to try to advance that, and I should like to hear from the UK Government their views on the proposals.
As we have heard, so many factors complicate whether aid is reaching those who most sorely need it. A lack of links with donor countries or international institutions may be one, but here the argument must be for strengthening and reforming international institutions so that the needs of the poorest can be best identified and addressed.
However, in many respects, that is probably not the greatest problem. Perhaps the most important issue that we need to address is that of governance—how, in countries with appalling and oppressive governments, the international community gets aid to the poorest people, so that their economies can develop and they can trade internationally. That must be the real challenge, and international co-operation to achieve that must surely be the way forward.
8.32 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for initiating this critical debate. It is timely following the recent G8 talks at Evian and covers a wide range of related topics, including HIPC and the Doha trade talks.
In the short time available, I shall explore in more depth one issue mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker: armed conflict in relation to poverty, because trade and all other solutions discussed by your Lordships in the debate become meaningless without peace.
One of the main stumbling blocks is the Government's lack of openness about exactly what criteria are used to make decisions on our involvement with a country. It is as simple as rewarding success and penalising failure, in terms of meeting set conditions: for example, economic growth policy; trade liberalisation; political freedoms; and good governance. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said so clearly: why have so many of those initiatives failed?
Do DfID and the FCO use the same criteria? Will the Secretary of State make those criteria available to the House? It is difficult to insist that there is transparency and accountability in developing countries and their governments unless we are transparent and accountable. That is particularly obvious with regard to the problem of conflict countries, a problem that many noble Lords have woven through their speeches this evening. Countries with civil wars are more common today than they were 40 years ago. That is mainly because most of the countries fighting then were colonies, so it was possible for powerful outside forces to impose stability. Today, counting wars with more than 1,000 violent deaths, one country in eight is involved in civil war. Alas, we cannot separate conflict from development. A century ago, most conflicts were between nations, and 90 per cent of the casualties were soldiers. Today, almost all wars are civil wars, and 90 per cent of the victims are civilians.
Most conflicts today are in Africa, most notably at the moment the ongoing tragedy in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi and Sudan. Those are the countries that find it most difficult to establish funding relationships with donors. The best predictors for conflict are low average income, low growth and high dependence on exports of primary products such as oil and diamonds. Poverty fosters war, and war impoverishes. A typical civil war leaves a country 15 per cent poorer than it would otherwise have been and with about 30 per cent more people living in absolute poverty. Having a neighbour at war reduces economic growth by about 0.5 per cent a year.
There are also non-monetary costs. For each 1,000 refugees who flee from one tropical country to another, the host country suffers an extra 1,406 cases of malaria, not to mention the transmission of HIV/AIDS by men in combat. That works against the achievement of the millennium development goals by 2015.

467
A recent World Bank study by Paul Collier shows that, when income per person doubles, the risk of civil war halves and that, for each percentage point by which the growth rate rises, the risk of conflict falls by a point. Another study shows that halving military manpower correlates to a reduction of a quarter in HIV among low-risk adults.
We are stuck with a paradox, aptly demonstrated by the situation in Burundi: peace will not be possible without international financial support, and that international support will not be forthcoming until peace is achieved. I ask the Secretary of State to tell us what plans there are to break the cycle with the injection of carefully targeted and monitored aid. We recognise the danger of providing moneys to countries at war, and we recognise that there are many issues about aid effectiveness. Could it not be properly managed through independent NGOs, thus providing alternative livelihood strategies to generations who would otherwise, perhaps, pick up a gun? Spending money on education and health seems to provide immediate boosts to the economy of conflict nations. It shows that those Governments are serious about peace, buoying confidence and encouraging private investment .
The many developing countries involved in civil conflict need to be reassured that this country and this Parliament, as we heard this evening, take an intense interest in what is going on. We must be proactive and reactive. We must be critical in our assessment of what occurs and take what steps we can to encourage peace. We must try as best we can to help such countries to meet the millennium development goals. I look forward to hearing the Secretary of State's response to many of the questions that have been posed.
8.40 p.m.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Whitaker for raising what I think is a very important issue. That has been demonstrated by the speeches of all noble Lords today. The effective and fair allocation of aid to poor countries is essential to the task of achieving the millennium development goals. We have worked hard to ensure that United Kingdom assistance is targeted to those who need it most, in settings where it will have the greatest impact.
Challenges remain to ensure that donors, including the European Commission, deliver aid effectively to those countries where poverty is most acute. Even greater challenges face us in delivering aid to countries where joint working is difficult due to conflict, state failure or extremely poor governance. The Department for International Development is supporting the development of new strategies to engage with these so-called "poorly performing" countries. We are focused on getting the international system to work together more effectively, but much remains to he done.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, is right when he says that we need to ensure that donor assistance is coordinated so that it does not become a burden on
468
developing country governments. Mozambique is a very good example of where donor co-ordination works effectively. That is why we have sought to align donor strategies and have moved to long-term aid partnerships. My noble friend Lord Desai raised the problems associated with criteria for giving aid. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, raised the issue of tied aid. Perhaps I may remind the House that we have untied all our aid, but we want to support countries which are committed to reform. It is important to remember that our citizens expect no less.
There is strong evidence that aid works to promote growth and it works to reduce poverty. Aid is most effective where good governance and sound economic management are in place. But we also know that the impact of aid is greatest where poverty is most acute. DfID's allocation of aid is targeted largely on the poorest countries. We also have smaller aid programmes in middle-income countries, such as the Ukraine and South Africa, where our targeted assistance can help with policies to promote growth and address poverty.
Although we provide assistance to a large number of countries, we do not try to cover all countries that are poor. It makes sense to have a focus on those poor countries where we have developed experience over the years. But we have also engaged with other countries where there are pressing problems and we think that we have particular knowledge or expertise to offer. Examples include Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
We have made a commitment that by April 2006, the share of our country programmes going to low income countries will rise from 78 per cent to 90 per cent. Even where we do not give aid bilaterally, we still make significant contributions through international organisations, such as the World Bank and the UN agencies. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, who raised in particular questions about US aid policies, that we strongly advocate a greater poverty focus by other donors. We have a number of bilateral discussions, as well as discussions in the context of the World Bank and the IMF, on these matters.
It is important that donors do not ignore poor countries. It is even more important that we do not ignore poor people. My noble friend Lord Desai suggested that we needed to get rid of statistics. So I apologise to him as I am going to quote some now, but I think that they are relevant. One of the most telling statistics is the total aid divided by the number of poor people in a country. The people of Niger do not fare well, having received only £21 per poor person in 2000. Mali comes out somewhat better at £30, while Laos is £133 and Moldova is £153 per poor person. However, these figures are sobering when one considers the enormous poverty that these countries face.
Yet they must be seen in comparison with other countries—particularly the large population countries—where need is also great. The comparable figure for Nigeria was only £1 per poor person in 2000. That is because Nigeria is the country in Africa with the greatest population. For India, the figure was £2, China, £5 and

469
Bangladesh, £20 per poor person. If there is discrimination, it is against those countries with large populations. That is why our strategy in the Department for International Development focuses a great deal of effort in sub-Saharan Africa because that is where we are least likely to meet the millennium development goals, but we are very conscious that we have significant aid programmes in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh because those are the countries that have the greatest proportion of poor people.
However, we and other donors could not justify giving most of our aid to a handful of very large countries. We need to consider the balance of countries and where aid will make the most impact for every pound spent. We must also remember that our development programme is not only about funding, it is also about building capacity, transferring knowledge and skills and securing fair global policies on trade and investment.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, raised the issue of building capacity, in particular as regards trade negotiations, and my noble friend Lady Whitaker referred to the need for developing countries to have an equal voice. The WTO is a membership organisation, which is why it is so important that developing countries have a voice. We have been building the capacity of developing countries. For example, we fund a regional negotiating machinery mechanism for the whole Caribbean region to enable those nations to engage more effectively in trade negotiations. We have also supported developments in the World Bank and the IMF in respect of giving developing countries a stronger voice.
With respect to the European Commission, the latest figures show that only 44 per cent of EC assistance goes to low-income countries, and we contribute up to £1 billion annually to the EC's external activities. That is why we have focused on reforming EC aid. Increasing the Commission's poverty focus is one of our priorities and I can assure my noble friend Lady Whitaker that we have worked to ensure that these issues are considered in relation to the discussions on the Convention on the Future of Europe.
My noble friend also raised the question of aid to governments that are weak, corrupt or undemocratic. On the whole, countries with weak governments, institutions and policies tend to receive less aid and it is usually the people in poverty who suffer, not those in power. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, was quite right to say that the long-term cost of ignoring these countries is significant, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that part of that cost could be increased global instability. Many of these countries are in situations of conflict, such as Somalia, DRC and Sudan, and our first task must be to lend support to end the conflicts and provide humanitarian assistance. Other countries such as Afghanistan are just emerging from conflict and need targeted assistance to rebuild their institutions.
470
Countries that have undemocratic and repressive regimes such as Zimbabwe and Burma are unable to attract much aid from donors. In any event, they would not be able to absorb aid effectively until democracy and sound governance are restored. There are also states where the capacity of the government is weak, where corruption is endemic or where the breakdown of law and order threatens both growth and human security. In those states, too, our traditional systems for delivering aid are not likely to work.
We cannot abandon the poor in such circumstances. To neglect these countries would not only perpetuate poverty, it could well contribute to the collapse of the state, with adverse consequences for both neighbouring states and the global community. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, spoke very powerfully about that. The answer is not to disengage, but to engage differently.
It is difficult to provide aid effectively to poorly performing states. We have to find ways of delivering assistance to poor people without stimulating dysfunctional politics or inadvertently aiding repression. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that we are examining the policy options in this area so that we can make our own programming more effective.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, spoke about the work of the World Bank and the unit it has established, called the low income countries under stress unit. The unit receives its main bilateral support from DfID and is promoting new ways for the World Bank to provide strategic assistance to poorly performing countries, even when those countries do not qualify for bank funds through the usual channels.
We are also working with other bilateral donors through the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD and we are taking the lead in supporting and co-chairing a learning and advisory process on difficult partnerships. The aim is to ensure that bilateral donors do not ignore the poorly performing states.
Let me deal with specific questions raised during the debate. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, referred to Angola. Of course Angola is in a post-conflict situation and we need to work with its government to ensure that they put reform processes in place to release resources which can then be spent in areas such as health and education.
The Government of Angola have to put the needs of their people first. We have discouraged the Government of Angola from holding a donor conference until such time as they have clearly instituted an internationally acceptable political and economic reform programme. I stated to the Government of Angola when I visited that country that we are willing to play our full part in such a conference when the time is right.
The noble Earl also referred to Angola's application to the Global Health Fund for help in tackling HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria. We have recently increased our funding to the Global Health Fund to 280 million US dollars. I hope that Angola's application to the fund is successful

471
but I agree with the noble Earl that we cannot look at the issue of HIV/AIDS in isolation. That is why we have focused a great deal of our attention on strengthening health systems in the developing countries in which we work. I shall of course communicate with the Government of Angola and encourage them to continue to work on their HIV/AIDS strategy, and in particular on the implementation of the strategies referred to by the noble Earl.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, referred to the departmental report and gave it a positive response. I cannot take any credit for that report. It was launched on the day after I became Secretary of State for International Development. The department and my right honourable friend Clare Short should take the credit.
As to the noble Earl's question on decentralisation and devolution, we support the decentralisation efforts of many countries. It is an effective means of enhancing responsiveness to the poor and, in the PRSP context, we support decentralisation only if it is government policy; we do not impose it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, raised the question of greater co-ordination between the United Kingdom and France in the Great Lakes region. She may recall that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary visited the Great Lakes with his French counterpart last year. Britain and France have not always agreed on policy for the Great Lakes—I agree with the noble Baroness that this has been to the detriment of policy for that region—but we are now working much more closely together. Our contribution to the French-led international force in the DRC is a good example of that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, raised the issue of the criteria we use in regard to funding and stated that she felt that the Government lacked openness and transparency. I am surprised. We have long-term partnerships, which are negotiated with the governments of developing countries and include consultations with key stakeholders; we publish a country assistance plan setting out our analysis and the areas we will support; and those plans are evaluated. It is probably the most open process there is.
Noble Lords will find on our website a wealth of information about the issues we take into account when considering our support for developing countries. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is developing criteria for its own global opportunities fund and I have no doubt that that criteria will be open.
The noble Baroness also raised the issue of Burundi. I agree that peace and security are absolutely critical, and we are giving direct support to the people of
472
Mozambique who, with South Africa and Angola, are contributing to the African peacekeeping force in Burundi. Until that happens, we cannot move to any kind of wider development programme.
I have run over time, but perhaps noble Lords will let me answer the last two points and conclude. My noble friend Lord Desai suggested the development of a human development bond. I would like to discuss that with him. As he knows, my right honourable friend the Chancellor has suggested an international financing facility which would double the amount of aid available and enable us to meet the millennium development goals by 2015. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, also came up with a creative solution which perhaps I should discuss with him outside the Chamber.
We are committed to building strong donor partnerships, particularly with the poorest countries. It is important that states are not overlooked due to historical accident or donor fashion, and that subjective aid allocation systems are put in place to help ensure fairness.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, suggested four areas in which he thought we should take action and which would assist. The first was reform of the European Union. We are working hard to find ways of reforming the Commission's aid policy. The second was with respect to debt. The noble Lord will know that we have pushed very hard to ensure that countries do not leave the HIPC process with unsustainable levels of debt. We will continue to do that.
The third area the noble Lord mentioned was working through regional and sub-regional organisations. We continue to do that, not just in the area of building peacekeeping capacity and dealing with conflict but with respect to trade and other areas. This is a key mechanism with respect to the New Partnership for Africa's Development.
The fourth area was trade, which was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and others. We are pushing very hard for reform of the common agricultural policy; we want to see a decoupling of subsidies for production. Noble Lords will know that my right honourable friend Margaret Beckett has been arguing our case very strongly in the EU Agriculture Council. We will continue to press for reform because we want these reforms now, ahead of the discussions at the WTO meeting in Cancun in September. We continue to work hard to find new ways to engage with poorly performing countries to ensure that neither multilateral nor bilateral donors neglect them.
These are some of the challenges that must be met. I believe they can be met, and the Government will continue to work towards that end.
House adjourned at two minutes before nine o'clock.

  General Commissioners of Income Tax: Amalgamation of Divisions
  General Commissioners of Income Tax: Amalgamation of Divisions
  Rent and Council Tax Arrears: Enforcement
  Rent and Council Tax Arrears: Enforcement
  Civil Partnerships
  Civil Partnerships
  North/South Language Body
  North/South Language Body
  Waterways Ireland
  Waterways Ireland
  Northern Ireland: Protestant Community Employment Data
  Northern Ireland: Protestant Community Employment Data
  Paramilitarism
  Paramilitarism
  Northern Ireland: Translink Services
  Northern Ireland: Translink Services
  Owen Waide: Special Educational Needs Assessment
  Owen Waide: Special Educational Needs Assessment
  North/South Implementation Bodies
  North/South Implementation Bodies
  EU Special Programmes Body
  EU Special Programmes Body
  Northern Ireland Departments: Underspend
  Northern Ireland Departments: Underspend
  Northern Ireland: Ulster Scots Community
  Northern Ireland: Ulster Scots Community
  Northern Ireland: Smoking among Civil Servants
  Northern Ireland: Smoking among Civil Servants
  Northern Ireland Departments: Questions for Written Answer
  Northern Ireland Departments: Questions for Written Answer
  PEACE II Funding
  PEACE II Funding
  Disposal of Human Bodies
  Disposal of Human Bodies
  Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: Parole Board Decision
  Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: Parole Board Decision
  Police Use of Firearms
  Police Use of Firearms
  Religiously Motivated Attacks
  Religiously Motivated Attacks
  Military Service: Compensation Arrangements
  Military Service: Compensation Arrangements
  Iraq: Water Supply to Civilians
  Iraq: Water Supply to Civilians
  Iraq: Depleted Uranium
  Iraq: Depleted Uranium
  RAF Fylingdales: Early Warning Radar System
  RAF Fylingdales: Early Warning Radar System
  Water Fluoridation
  Water Fluoridation
  Cancer Registries
  Cancer Registries
  Extra Care Housing
  Extra Care Housing
  NHS: Brokerage
  NHS: Brokerage
  Disabled Young People: John Grooms Inquiry
  Disabled Young People: John Grooms Inquiry
  Disabled People: Community-based Services
  Disabled People: Community-based Services
  NHS Commissioning
  NHS Commissioning
  Strategic Health Authorities
  Strategic Health Authorities
  Matrons
  Matrons
  Domiciliary Oxygen Services
  Domiciliary Oxygen Services
  Young Carers
  Young Carers
  Housing Benefit Sanctions and Anti-social Behaviour
  Housing Benefit Sanctions and Anti-social Behaviour
  Non-Residential Property
  Non-Residential Property
  Gaelic Language: Status in UK
  Gaelic Language: Status in UK
  SSSIs on North-West Coast: Grant Awards
  SSSIs on North-West Coast: Grant Awards