Sitting of 18 June 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS

  MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE
  The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the absence of MR. SPEAKER from this day's sitting, pursuant to leave given on 16 June.
  Whereupon, SIR ALAN HASELHURST, THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table, and after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  TRANSAS GROUP BILL (By Order)
  Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
Ordered,
That Keith Hill and Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Mr. Bob Ainsworth and Jim Fitzpatrick be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—
  DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

    Antisocial Behaviour
    Jim Knight: What his Department's role is in reducing antisocial behaviour in local communities. [119747]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope): The Government recognise the impact that antisocial behaviour can have on local communities and people's quality of life. That is why we are taking strong and concerted action across Government to tackle problems of antisocial and nuisance behaviour. Examples of action being taken by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister include neighbourhood warden schemes, new measures to deal with antisocial tenants, and a new package of more than £200 million to create cleaner, safer, more attractive local environments.
    Jim Knight: I thank the Minister for that reply and congratulate him warmly on his appointment.
    338
    Last Friday, I visited Inspector Holland, at Swanage police station, to discuss antisocial behaviour in that part of my constituency. He informed me of the reluctance of many local agencies to use their existing powers for antisocial behaviour orders. Will the Minister assure me that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will issue clear guidance on how councils should use the new powers in the legislation that we are currently examining in this place and elsewhere, so that, even in Tory councils, where they are happy to do nothing and then blame the Government, we can ensure that the problem of antisocial behaviour is tackled properly throughout the country?
    Phil Hope: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks.
    I agree that it is important that local agencies make use of all the powers available to them to tackle antisocial behaviour. My hon. Friend has been at the forefront of local campaigns to reduce that problem in his constituency, pressing local councils to take more decisive action. I take this opportunity to urge all councils to use their new powers and the new resources that the Government have provided to tackle a problem that blights too many of our local communities.
    Mr. Mark Field: I, too, congratulate the Minister on his new appointment.
    I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can be held personally responsible for the new £200 million package to which he referred, but I am keen to know his view on how that package of measures to get rid of antisocial behaviour ties in with the Licensing Bill, to which we gave a Third Reading only the other night, and its plans to allow 24-hour drinking on all our streets—especially as regards central London.
    Phil Hope: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks.
    The hon. Gentleman must understand that we are working across Government to implement a range of programmes to tackle antisocial behaviour, so that on our streets we see new neighbourhood wardens and new community support officers who will be working hard in their areas, with local communities, doing a different job from that of the police, to tackle the kind of problem to which he referred. I am confident that they will be able to take serious steps to reduce crime rates and to ensure that the trend continues downward.
    Mr. Graham Allen: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to the Treasury Bench in a long-overdue promotion.
    As one of my hon. Friend's first duties, will he arrange a meeting with his counterpart at the Department for Education and Skills? My hon. Friend will know from his previous work that one of the keys to tackling antisocial behaviour is developing parenting and social skills in young people before they become antisocial. Will he discuss that with the DFES and consider asking his colleagues to include those skills for young people in the national curriculum?
    Phil Hope: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks.

    339
    My hon. Friend puts his finger on an important point. As well as measures to tackle crime, we are introducing measures to tackle the underlying causes of crime—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] My hon. Friend is right to point that out. Many of our constituencies benefit from programmes such as sure start, as well as from the children's fund, from Connexions and the youth service, which work with young people and families to deal with problems of low self-esteem and under-achievement at school. Those programmes are raising standards, attainment and aspirations in some of the poorest neighbourhoods in our communities.
    Mr. Eric Pickles: I, too, warmly welcome and congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new position. He was a distinguished Back Bencher and I am sure that he will quickly get used to defending the indefensible.
    Although the hon. Gentleman has been at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for only a short time, does not he feel a degree of embarrassment that the average number of antisocial behaviour orders is less than 5 per cent. of what the Government predicted? Does he blame local councils for that, or is the real culprit a Government who mistake press releases for law enforcement? Local authorities can use such orders only against a backdrop of neighbourhood policing, so will he support the Conservative call for an extra 40,000 police officers on our streets?
    Phil Hope: Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks, and I am glad that I do not have to defend a record of crime doubling under the Conservatives or to go into the next general election defending a pledge to cut public spending by 20 per cent. The facts are that there have been 785 antisocial behaviour orders up to last November, that the threat of such orders can have an impact on reducing crime and that the new Antisocial Behaviour Bill, which I hope the Conservative party will stop its foolish opposition to and start to support, will introduce new measures to clamp down on such problems in our communities.

    Council Housing
    2. Dr. Brian Iddon: If he will make a statement on his policy on funding council housing. [119748]
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): Our policy is to enable local authorities properly to manage and maintain their stock, while charging fair and affordable rents. All councils are required to bring their stock up to the decent homes standard. Indeed, since 1997, we have reduced the number of non-decent social homes by 500,000, and we are on track to ensure that all social housing is decent by 2010.
    Dr. Iddon: In a recent report in Property People, Lord Rooker is quoted as telling tenants in Hammersmith and Fulham that there would be "no exceptions" to the policy of making councils choose between stock transfer, the private finance initiative or arm's length management organisation options. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether that report is accurate? If it is not, will he assure the tenants who vote against those
    340
    options that their local authorities will be adequately funded to meet the Government's very worthy decent homes target?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend exactly reports the options that we have got. The three options, as reported by Lord Rooker, are absolutely right, but there is an option for local authorities to stay with their housing stock if they wish. Those are the choices that they have, but we have made considerable changes and investment in housing has gone from about £750 million to £2.1 billion—a tremendous increase, against the Tory record of reducing housing investment every year.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that, at the end of 1997, 25,000 social houses were built in this country, but by the end of last year, the figure had fallen to 14,500 social houses built six years into a Labour Government? Why has that happened? Is not he ashamed that a Labour Government have turned their back on some of the country's poorest people?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: It is a bit of a cheek for the hon. Gentleman to say that—he belonged to a Government who had a housing record that was, frankly, scandalous. They left us with a £19 billion disinvestment, which we have just referred to, and a year-on-year decrease in housing investment. As I told the House when I launched the sustainable community package, the record in housing of all Governments, over decades, has been poor and unacceptable. That is why we have invested the largest amount of money ever given to a housing programme—£22 billion. We intend to reverse the trend, and we have made major changes in improving the housing stock. The amount of money available is not enough to meet every demand, but it reverses the decline that we saw under the Tories, who produced a massive repair backlog and a year-on-year decrease and gave away £40 billion in subsidising the right to buy, instead of improving homes for the people. Half a million homes were repossessed between 1990 and 1997. That is the record of a Tory Government, and we will not take any lecture from them on housing policy.
    Mr. Clive Soley: My right hon. Friend will have seen the report from Hammersmith and Fulham, which was well prepared and indicated that tenants wanted to stay with the council. Indeed, I gave evidence to that very excellent committee. However, one of the problems in Ealing—another part of my constituency—is that a Conservative council doubled the rent overnight. When that happens, as I pointed out to the tenants, one of the problems of remaining under council control is that they become victims of political change at very short notice. If we want good quality housing in this country, we need a genuine long-term commitment, free of that sort of political gerrymandering of rents.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Indeed, that is the record that we inherited, and we have given local authorities the option to change from that system and to have a greater opportunity for continuity, to get the proper

    341
    investment and to have decent quality homes. That is the dividing line between our policies and those that we inherited from the Tories.
    Mr. David Curry: Does the Deputy Prime Minister regard it as indispensable, in order to meet his communities plan targets, for private developers to be given access to Housing Corporation loans?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Loans?
    Mr. Curry: Housing Corporation funding.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Housing Corporation funding is available for that and has been used in the past. We are looking at a range of public and private financing. As the right hon. Gentleman well knows from his experience in government, the reality of the housing situation is that there is a lack of adequate resources. We have turned more to using public and private resources to lift the amount of investment for housing. We are considering using private resources for housing corporations.
    Mr. Clive Betts: Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), council tenants in my constituency warmly welcome the Government's commitment to the decent homes target and the extra funding that has been made available for council housing. However, they are against stock transfer and want to remain with the local authority. Will my right hon. Friend assure them that if they stay with the local authority, funding will still be available for the decent homes target to be met?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I understand my hon. Friend's point. He must know from his experience on housing that the disinvestment that occurred in the local authority housing stock means that something like £19 billion has to be found. We have to restart a housing programme. There are major problems in the south and the north and we need resources from public and private sources as well as the Exchequer. Given those circumstances, we have had to say that we will try to provide adequate funding for those who want to stay with local authorities, but we have provided alternatives, which the majority of councils are using to bring together public and private financing so that investment in housing to correct the disinvestment can be achieved more quickly.
    Simon Hughes: Is the Deputy Prime Minister willing to consider the project just down the road at Elephant and Castle, which he knows about, and the project on the Aylesbury estate, which he and I have talked about, to find out how we can achieve what he told his colleagues? Where a regeneration scheme that is supported by the Government is going ahead, is there a way in which people who want to be council tenants can be assured of
    342
    the same funding for new homes in the public sector as would be available if they transferred to registered social landlords?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Yes, but I have made it clear that there are a number of choices: regeneration programmes, private finance initiative programmes, stock transfer programmes and ALMO programmes. They all represent different approaches and they increase resources. I am trying to be fair to all sectors of the housing community, which is what the programmes are about. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I say to the House that there are far too many extraneous conversations going on, the total volume of which is making it difficult to hear both questions and answers?

    Regional Government
    3. Mr. John Grogan: What representations he has received concerning the case for a referendum on regional government in Yorkshire. [119750]
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): On Monday 16 June, I announced that Yorkshire and Humberside would be one of the first regions to move toward a referendum for an elected assembly. Our soundings exercise shows that there is a high level of interest in the referendum across all groups and interests in the Yorkshire and Humberside region.
    Mr. Grogan: If the Yorkshire and Humberside assembly is to have effective powers to plan integrated public transport throughout the region and perhaps to initiate measures such as a region-wide concessionary fare pass for pensioners, will there be a continuing need for separate passenger transport authorities in west and south Yorkshire?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: There is no intention of changing the passenger transport authorities at this stage—I think that they are doing quite a good job. Of course, the regional dimension of transport is important. We would give an assembly, especially an elected assembly, the opportunity to make decisions on transport in the regions, and in the context of a region, rather than only with regard to an area covered by a passenger transport authority. A passenger transport authority not only plans for the area for which it is responsible, but has responsibility for delivery. I am sure that there will be a close working relationship between the bodies.
    David Davis: May I crave your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and add my congratulations to the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope), on his arrival to the Front Bench? After his time with me on the Public Accounts Committee, I was unsurprised by his characteristically good opening performance.
    The Deputy Prime Minister's idea of a good response is 833 people in favour of a referendum out of 5 million

    343
    people in Yorkshire and Humberside. If a referendum is a good idea when 833 people want one, why is it a bad idea when 1.7 million people want one?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman keeps referring to 8,000. As I think we made clear in our exchanges yesterday, that does not represent the total number of people who expressed a point of view. There were 50,000 people overall. Responses on petitions, for example, which may include thousands or hundreds of signatures, were considered as one response. We have had exchanges on the subject before. I justified the decision to the House on the basis that the three northern areas have shown an overwhelming interest in a referendum. We intend to give them that opportunity. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the one county council in our Yorkshire area—the Tory North Yorkshire county council—also wanted the referendum. I am happy to agree to that.
    David Davis: I am interested that the right hon. Gentleman returns to the principle of the block vote in his calculation of who supports his idea and I look forward to meeting him on the hustings. BBC "Look North", not known as a Tory front organisation, particularly as his son works for it, carried out a survey this week of 5,000 people—five times the number of people who responded to the right hon. Gentleman in Yorkshire—and nine out of 10 thought that regional assemblies were a bad idea. Why does he still insist on spending millions of pounds of public money and disrupting perfectly good local government to pursue his obsession with this daft idea?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The same BBC carried out a poll that said that 72 per cent. wanted a referendum. I am prepared to accept that. There will be a referendum and by God I look forward to debating that with the right hon. Gentleman.

    Home Energy Efficiency
    4. Mrs. Helen Clark: What plans he has to issue guidance to local planning authorities concerning minimum energy efficiency standards in (a) new and (b) existing housing. [119751]
    The Minister of State for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill): Although we have no plans to issue specific guidance to planning authorities on energy efficiency standards for housing, the Government have recently brought in a number of measures to help improve energy efficiency in homes.
    For example, the new building regulations, which came into effect just over a year ago, are expected to improve energy performance in new homes by some 25 per cent. The draft housing Bill, published in March this year, aims to replace the present fitness standard with a new housing health and safety rating system, which will allow local authorities to tackle cold hazard in existing homes, especially in the private rented sector. Also, our so-called "decent home" programme, begun in the year 2000 and to be completed in 2010, will bring all social
    344
    housing and much private rented accommodation up to a reasonable degree of warmth through more efficient heating and better insulation.
    Mrs. Clark: I am grateful for that reply, but is my hon. Friend aware that as many as 100 local authorities have reported pathetic and paltry increases in domestic energy efficiency of as little as 1 per cent. in their areas since 1996? Is he prepared to wield the big stick and issue directions to them to up their performances?
    Keith Hill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. She is a doughty and knowledgeable campaigner on green issues. However, this time she has not got it quite right. The truth is that energy conservation authorities report improvements in domestic energy efficiency on an annual basis. Only one local authority reported a total overall improvement of 1 per cent. or less since 1996. Let me reassure my hon. Friend that we expect local authorities to continue improving their performance on domestic energy efficiency. To that end, the energy White Paper contains the commitment to review existing guidance to energy conservation authorities on complying with the requirements of the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995.
    Matthew Green: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment as a Minister. Will he admit that the Government have not done enough to improve energy efficiency in houses? In particular, they have failed to take advantage of design conditions that would improve energy efficiency by maximising the use of natural daylight and heating. Will he introduce plans to encourage local authorities to improve their planning process to ensure that energy efficiency is paid the highest regard in new housing?
    Keith Hill: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman., but I am grateful for his kind remarks. As I said, there are no plans to issue further guidance relating solely to energy efficiency in housing. However, many of our initiatives cover such matters more generally. For example, we are currently examining, together with other Departments, how to bring the use of renewables and the improvement of energy efficiency and its development more within the scope of the planning system. We are proceeding in the context of the review of planning policy guidance note 22 and the Government's wider planning reforms in a way that will not impose undue burdens on developers.

    Local Government
    5. Valerie Davey: What progress he has made with the balance of funding review of local government. [119752]
    The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The steering group's first meeting on 28 April discussed key issues from the local and central Government perspectives. Our next meeting on 25 June will consider papers on principles, accountability, equalisation and international

    345
    comparisons, along with proposals for further research. We will invite interested parties to submit papers later this summer.
    Valerie Davey: What greater freedoms and responsibilities will that allow local authorities?
    Mr. Raynsford: As my hon. Friend knows, we set out in our White Paper, which we published 18 months ago, proposed extensions of freedoms and flexibilities to local authorities, and we are legislating for that in our current Local Government Bill. However, the balance of funding review will explore a number of channels in which it is possible to extend that agenda to offer greater freedom for local authorities, particularly where that helps to drive up their performance and deliver higher quality services to their residents.
    Mr. Edward Davey: Does the Minister acknowledge that there can be a significant shift in the balance of funding only if local government has a fair local tax base? Will the Minister's review therefore consider scrapping the unfair Tory council tax? Does he not recognise that for councils like Kingston, which already raises 41 per cent. of its budget through the unfair council tax, the unfairness of the tax means that the burden on pensioners and those on low incomes is already far too harsh?
    Mr. Raynsford: We have not ruled out any options from the review. We will take a broad view and consider a range of options. However, before rushing to precipitate conclusions, the hon. Gentleman ought to give consideration to one important factor: the ease of collection of forms of taxation. He will realise that there are certain advantages in taxation systems that relate to property, where evasion is much more difficult than with some of the other types of taxation that I know the Liberal Democrats tend to favour.

    National Assembly for Wales
    6. Ian Lucas: If he will submit evidence to the commission on the powers and electoral arrangements of the National Assembly for Wales. [119753]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper): The Government have provided the Richard commission with a memorandum of evidence. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has given oral evidence. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has not been invited to give evidence and would not expect to do so.
    Ian Lucas: Before the reshuffle, the Deputy Prime Minister had overall control of relations between the UK Government and the National Assembly for Wales. Does he retain that position, and if so, what is the role of the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs? Is he, perhaps, head of a new Department of administrative affairs?
    Yvette Cooper: The position was set out last week. The Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for regional
    346
    government in the English regions. My noble Friend the Lord Falconer is responsible for overall devolution issues arising out of the Act of Settlement, and the five people currently responsible for those settlement issues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are moving to the Department for Constitutional Affairs, as set out last week.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: On Monday the Deputy Prime Minister said that some of the regional assemblies in England would be accorded tax-varying powers. Why has that consistently been ruled out for the Welsh Assembly?
    Yvette Cooper: That was not what my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said this week.

    Postal Ballots
    8. Paddy Tipping: When he last met the Electoral Commission to discuss the all-postal vote pilot ballots and their possible extension. [119756]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper): My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions met the chair of the Electoral Commission on 22 May. Issues discussed included the highly successful pilot schemes held in May.
    Paddy Tipping: Given the success of the schemes and the increased turnout, is it not important that in 2004 at the local elections and the Euro elections, people still have the chance of all-postal ballots? What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that that happens?
    Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right that the all-postal ballots increased turnout on average from about 33 per cent. to just under 50 per cent. We are looking at the implications for the combination of the Euro elections and the local government elections next year.

    Homelessness
    9. Mr. John Randall: How many homeless households have been accommodated in bed-and-breakfast hostels since 1997. [119757]
    The Minister of State for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill): I have placed in the Library a table detailing the number of homeless households accommodated in bed-and-breakfast hotels since 1997. The number increased from an average of about 4,400 in 1997 to more than 13,000 by the end of September 2002. That is plainly unsatisfactory and we have been taking action to address the issue, especially where it affects children. I am pleased to say that figures published yesterday show a fall in the number of such households to 12,200 in March this year. Importantly, the number of families

    347
    with children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has been reduced even more significantly, by almost 30 per cent. over the past year.
    Mr. Randall: I shall certainly look at those figures. It is nice to hear a Minister admit that something has gone wrong. Why does he think that it has gone wrong so dramatically?
    Keith Hill: There are a variety of reasons, including such sadnesses as family break-up and evictions, and the general increase in house prices. The Government are committed to dealing with these things and we are investing new funds in social housing to eradicate the scourge of homelessness in our society.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. [119732] Mr. Eric Illsley: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 18 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Illsley: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to reject the artificially generated hysteria about the Convention on the Future of Europe? Will he confirm that, when it comes to the ratification of any future European treaty. he will do exactly what previous Conservative Prime Ministers have done—reject a referendum and ratify through an Act of Parliament in this House?
    The Prime Minister: That is the procedure that we will follow. Of course, we have said that, should we recommend to people that we join the European single currency, there will be a referendum on that issue. There is no need to have a referendum on the Convention or the intergovernmental conference because they do not alter the fundamental constitutional arrangements. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that it is very important to reject the position of those who, as we have seen from the Conservative spokesman on the Convention, would want to change the essential terms of Britain's membership of the European Union.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Yesterday, the new Leader of the House—part-time Leader of the House—said that he had given up a third of his job in order to be an effective Welsh Secretary. Can the Prime Minister tell the House how much time the Secretary of State for Transport has given up to be an effective Scottish Secretary?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend will spend as much time on Scottish affairs as is required, as he has already said, but let me point out to the right hon. Gentleman what the Conservative position is on the
    348
    Secretary of State for Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] The position on which he stood at the last election is this—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] This is what the Conservative manifesto said: "We will keep"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal for calm and dignity in the House, and I would ask the Prime Minister to remember that his prime responsibility is to answer for the Government.
    The Prime Minister: And in answering for the Government, I want to say why I agree with the proposition that I am about to read out from the Conservative party manifesto:
    "We will keep the position of Secretary of State for Scotland with the holder of that position also having an additional UK role within the Cabinet."
    So we have implemented Conservative party manifesto policy.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Let me remind the Prime Minister that he was elected to implement his own manifesto, and ask him where in his manifesto did he make a pledge to have a part-time Welsh Secretary, a part-time Scottish Secretary, a part-time Leader of the House or, for that matter, a part-time Secretary of State for Transport?
    The Prime Minister rose—
    Mr. Duncan Smith: I have not finished yet. The Prime Minister will not get away as easily as that.
    Let me remind the Prime Minister what he actually did pledge. Eight months ago, at the Labour party conference, he said that transport under Labour was "probably the worst area of public services". Will he explain how full-time chaos on the roads can be dealt with by a part-time Secretary of State for Transport?
    The Prime Minister: I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to acknowledge that I now agree with Conservative party policy, at least in relation to the Secretary of State for Scotland. As for transport, we are investing billions of pounds in our transport system. That is public investment, and also private sector investment.
    The problem that the right hon. Gentleman must explain is this. That investment programme was put to the House a short time ago, and it was voted against by the Conservative party. How can the right hon. Gentleman say that he is going to improve the state of Britain's roads and railways when he has opposed the investment that will make that possible?
    Mr. Duncan Smith: It is the usual story. The Prime Minister is rattling out the same old Labour lie machine, every single time. [Interruption.] Oh yes.
    Let us remind the Prime Minister exactly what state all his transport policy is in. One in five trains is now late. Train services are being cut by his Government. Train fares are set to be increased by his Government. Congestion on the roads is growing every single day.
    So the Prime Minister thinks that a record like that—a record of chaos like that—can be dealt with by appointing a part-time Secretary of State for Transport.

    349
    He must be the only person who does. Is that not the real reason why every pledge he makes is broken, and no one believes a single word he says any more?
    The Prime Minister: First, let me say something about rail punctuality. Until the Hatfield rail crash, it was more or less constant. It is true that since Hatfield we have realised that the state of the railway infrastructure was infinitely worse than was anticipated. It is for that very reason, however, that we are committed to substantial investment. There are billions of pounds of public money, and also private sector money.
    Now—can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he is in favour of that extra investment or not? One thing is for sure: spending less money on transport is not going to help it.
    Mr. Michael Meacher: May I ask a question about the current public debate on genetically modified food? The Prime Minister has said repeatedly that a decision on whether to commercialise GM crops should be made on scientific grounds, and that it should be established whether there is a risk to health or the environment. Quite so.
    Is the Prime Minister aware that there have been no human feeding trials in either the United States or the United Kingdom to establish the health or biochemical effects of consuming GM foods? Does he agree that until such tests are carried out, an important option for the Government when they are reaching a decision later this year is the exercise of the precautionary principle? Does he agree with that, and will he ensure that it is taken on board very seriously?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly think it is very important for us to take on board all the issues relating to GM food. The only other thing I have said, and I say it again, is that it is important for the whole debate to be conducted on the basis of scientific evidence, not on the basis of prejudice.
    Let me also point out that the biotech industry in this country is immensely important, and it is important for its future that it recognises that decisions made by Government will be based on proper scientific evidence. I say this to my right hon. Friend in all sincerity: it worries me that there are voices, here and in the rest of Europe, that are not prepared to give enough consideration to the potential benefits as well as the potential downsides. All I say is that it is important to the future of our country and other countries that the decision is made on proper scientific grounds.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: When both the former Foreign Secretary and the former Secretary of State for International Development told the Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday that they had been told by MI6 that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction capable of posing a direct threat to British security, were they correct?
    The Prime Minister: The intelligence that we put out in the dossier last September described absolutely accurately the position of the Government. That
    350
    position is that Saddam was indeed a threat to his region and to the wider world. I always made it clear that the issue was not whether he was about to launch an immediate strike on Britain: the issue was whether he posed a threat to his region and to the wider world. [Interruption.] I must say that I thought that Conservative Members, who are muttering, agreed with that on the basis of the same intelligence.
    Mr. Kennedy: But given the seriousness of the charges made by those two former Cabinet Ministers yesterday, does the Prime Minister think that this can be adequately investigated by a Foreign Affairs Committee to which he refuses to give evidence and a Joint Intelligence Committee which he controls? Can we not have a proper independent judicial inquiry?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman says that I control the Intelligence and Security Committee, but he has a member of his own party on that Committee; I do not believe that he would agree with the assessment that he is controlled by me. There are senior members of the Conservative party on that Committee; they are not controlled by me, either. It is headed by a senior former member of the Government. It is entirely capable of investigating all the facts and getting to the truth. I hope that when the truth is finally told by that Committee, we will then have a debate on the basis of evidence, not on the basis of speculation, the vast bulk of which, I may say, is completely untrue.
    Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: The Prime Minister is aware that many of us in this House and outside it have long campaigned for the Executive functions of the Lord Chancellor to be transferred from an unelected, patronage-appointed official to a Secretary of State in this House answerable to the elected House of Commons. Will he confirm that under the new reforms those functions will now be exercised by an unelected, patronage-appointed official in the House of Lords answerable to the unelected House of Lords?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that many people would recognise my hon. Friend's description of the concept of an independent judicial appointments commission, which is what people have long campaigned for. I have to say to him that it does not surprise me in the least that having campaigned for many years for us to do something, when we do it he then opposes it.
    Mr. David Raney: The Prime Minister will not allow Mr. Alastair Campbell to give evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee on the Government's handling of information in the run-up to the war. Can the Prime Minister please tell us what he is trying to hide?
    The Prime Minister: It has never been the case that officials have given evidence to Select Committees, neither is it the case that the Prime Minister does so, except in very limited circumstances, which we have set

    351
    out. We have made it absolutely clear, however, that we will co-operate with the Intelligence and Security Committee in any way that it seeks.
    Paul Farrelly: My right hon. Friend will be aware that my borough, Newcastle-under-Lyme, has made great strides in regenerating our old coal-mining areas, not least through the efforts of our recently retired council leader, Eddie Boden. Does the Prime Minister recognise, however, that in view of continued job losses in the pottery industry, we need to deliver strategic investment and vision for north Staffordshire as a whole? Would he therefore assist us in that by reviewing the efforts of our regional development agency, Advantage West Midlands, in the potteries, and by ensuring that when Government jobs and agencies are relocated outside London, the claims of north Staffordshire feature strongly on the list?
    The Prime Minister: First, I should express my condolences to those constituents of my hon. Friend who have lost their jobs at the Wedgwood pottery: I know that that will be a huge blow to the workers and their families. He is absolutely right to stress the importance of Advantage West Midlands. In fact, we have more or less doubled the budget over the past few years. My hon. Friend is also right in saying that there is a strong case for relocating some Government functions outside London, and I can assure him that we will take into account very carefully the position that he outlines.
    Mr. lain Duncan Smith: Some 42 million people were consulted on regional assemblies. How many people said that they wanted one?
    The Prime Minister: In the three areas where we said we wanted a referendum, people also wanted a referendum.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Of the 42 million people, a mere 4,000 said yes. That is 0.01 per cent. of the whole population. Will the Prime Minister explain why, when only 4,000 people say yes to a referendum, they get it, but when more than 1.5 million people say they want a referendum on the European constitution, he says no?
    The Prime Minister: There should be a referendum in circumstances in which there is a proposal to alter fundamentally the Government's constitutional arrangements. That is not the case with the European Convention. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could specify the fundamental constitutional changes that the Convention outlines.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Perhaps the Prime Minister would like to tell us what constitutional changes are necessary for water fluoridation. He is now offering a referendum on that. The right hon. Gentleman changes his argument whenever he meets the question. He is fond of citing our position; perhaps I can remind him of some quotes from a book, which he may recall, that he published. He said:
    "If there are further steps to European integration, the people should have their say at a general election or in a referendum."
    352
    We know that the Labour manifesto at the last election did not contain a single word about a European constitution. When will the British people get their say in a referendum?
    Let me ask the Prime Minister another question. [Interruption.] Labour Members do not want to hear it. On the back of the book, he made a pledge to the British people. He does not want to hear it, but I shall read it to him. It stated:
    "When we make a promise, we must be sure we can keep it."
    [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] There is more:
    "That is page one, line one of a new contract between Government and citizen."
    Is not the reality that the Prime Minister has broken his contract with the British people? Surely that is the reason why nobody believes a word he says any more.
    The Prime Minister: What we have promised is a referendum on the single currency, should we recommend it to the British people. We will keep that promise. We have never promised a referendum on the European Convention, for the simple reason that, as I said earlier, it does not involve a fundamental change to the British constitution. Indeed, we are in a bizarre position: everywhere in the rest of Europe, people regard the outcome of the Convention as good for Britain, yet according to Conservative Members, it is such a dire outcome for Britain that they want to reduce our membership to associate membership. We know why the right hon. Gentleman wants a referendum on the Convention: to vote no and get Britain out of Europe. That has been his game all along.
    Roger Casale: I know that the Prime Minister will welcome the setting up last month of the London-wide race hate crime forum, a partnership that is led by the Metropolitan Police Authority and involves many statutory and voluntary groups in London, including Victim Support and the Crown Prosecution Service. Ten years on from the murder of Stephen Lawrence in London, will my right hon. Friend and the Home Secretary redouble their commitment to more front-line resources in the fight against race hate crime? The Ethnic Minority Center's racial harmony project and the Merton partnership against crime in my constituency show that the resources are being used to good effect.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right in what he says, especially as this year is the 10th anniversary of Stephen Lawrence's death. We have introduced nine new racially aggravated offences, which carry higher maximum penalties when there is evidence of a racist motive or racial hostility in connection with the offence. The Public Order Act 1986 outlaws incitement to racial hatred and I am pleased that the Metropolitan police have set up community safety units in every London borough. Although there is a distance to go, both the police and the Government take the issue seriously. As my hon. Friend says, by taking it seriously, we are having a direct impact on the problem.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Why does the Prime Minister persist in dealing with the dignified part of our constitution so casually and arrogantly? Does not

    353
    he understand that his proposal to remove the Lord Chancellor without extensive consultation is an affront to the Crown and Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: As we shall discuss in a moment, the whole purpose of the reforms is to give away the power of the Prime Minister to nominate a member of the Cabinet who has a judicial function, who appoints the judges and who is Speaker of the House of Lords. I should have thought that giving away the power to make such an appointment would be welcomed.
    Mr. Richard Bacon: Well, you are wrong.
    The Prime Minister: I am, because I did not count on the completely reactionary nature of today's Conservative party. I should have thought that people would welcome the fact that, rather than having a Cabinet Minister appointed by the Prime Minister, the House of Lords will have its own independent Speaker. Only today's Conservative party could oppose that as dictatorial.
    Joyce Quin: I warmly support the establishment of a supreme court in this country. I also warmly applaud the announcement earlier this week by the Deputy Prime Minister of the opportunity for people in the north-east, the north-west and Yorkshire and the Humber to vote for elected regional government. May I urge and encourage my right hon. Friend to support those campaigning for a yes vote in the regional referendums, thereby sending out the clearest possible message that devolution is not only right for Scotland and Wales but firmly in the interest of the United Kingdom as a whole?
    The Prime Minister: In addition to what my right hon. Friend rightly says, there is a Government office in each of the three areas that we are suggesting as suitable for regional government—indeed, the Government offices for the regions were put there by the previous Conservative Government—but they have no proper democratic accountability. The purpose of the reforms is to introduce democratic accountability.
    Mr. John Butterfill: In view of the constitutional dog's breakfast that the Prime Minister has created in the relationships between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, will he now appoint a Secretary of State for England—preferably an Englishman—to answer to the House on exclusively English matters?
    The Prime Minister: I confess that I thought the Conservatives had now come to accept devolution in Scotland and Wales, but I assume from what the hon. Gentleman says that they have not. All that that indicates—[Interruption.] Well, that was the purpose of the hon. Gentleman's question. It only goes to show how completely out of date the Conservative party is.
    Mr. Colin Challen: May I warmly congratulate the Government on a subject that will be of no conceivable interest to the
    354
    Conservative party—namely our very positive response to the manifesto of the national Youth Parliament? I particularly welcome the proposal for a youth fund, which will give more resources to young people. May I suggest that the next logical step, alongside the review of the voting age by the Electoral Commission, should be a review of the corporate age of responsibility, so that well-established youth parliaments and councils could make more decisions on their own, rather than simply being consulted all the time? That would get more young people involved in the political process.
    The Prime Minister: I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend does with the Youth Parliament. I have heard what he has just said about how it operates, and I am sure that we shall give the matter careful consideration.

    Syria
    Dr. Julian Lewis: If he will make a statement on UK relations with Syria.
    The Prime Minister: The UK is committed to a policy of constructive and, where necessary, critical engagement with Syria. This allows us to support reform while maintaining a robust dialogue on issues of concern.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: The Prime Minister will be well aware of a statement by the Foreign Secretary on 6 May that Syria gives support to what he described as "rejectionist terrorist organisations". Bearing in mind the fact that it was possible for me to compile in less than half an hour this not-so-dodgy dossier on the long record of Syria's chemical and biological weapons programmes, does the Prime Minister believe—he ought to, because this information came straight from the internet—that we should be worried by any threat that terrorist groups might obtain chemical or biological weapons from the Syrian regime?
    The Prime Minister: Syria's support for terrorism is an issue that we have raised constantly. The closure of the offices of rejectionist groups such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad is a step in the right direction, but we have to go far further. Issues to do with weapons of mass destruction are also concerning—the hon. Gentleman is right about that—but we believe that the best way to pursue those concerns is in dialogue with the Syrian Government, and that dialogue is of a frank and critical nature. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will continue to raise those issues with them. I have done so personally at meetings with President Bashar. I have no doubt that, if we can get a peace process going in the middle east, it will be essential that Syria, and indeed other countries, cut off all support for these terrorist groups, otherwise they will derail the whole process.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is it not a matter of concern that some formidable figures in Washington—Feith, Bolton, Wolfowitz, Perle and James Wolsey—have urged for some time that there be further action not only against Iraq but against Syria and Iran? Can we

    355
    have a cast-iron guarantee that the British Government will do everything possible to oppose military action against Damascus or Tehran?
    The Prime Minister: We have never had a proposition put to us by the American Government for such military action, but what they have said—and we agree with it—is that there are real concerns to do with weapons of mass destruction and with terrorism, and it is important, by the process of dialogue that I have just described, that we get both Syria and Iran to change their position on these issues. If they do not change their position on terrorism, the middle east peace process is put at risk. If they do not change their position on weapons of mass destruction, the world becomes a less safe place. We are right to pursue this frank but critical dialogue, and we will continue to do so.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Just over an hour ago, in Westminster Hall, the Minister for Europe made it clear that the Prime Minister had no intention of raising the issue of Chechnya with President Putin on his visit next week, and he also advanced the argument that we should judge Russia differently from other countries because of the circumstances that it faces in the conflict in Chechnya, where the Russian security forces have been largely responsible for the deaths of more than 100,000 people. Will the Prime Minister now make it clear that he will raise that issue with President Putin next week and state clearly that Britain expects Russia to abide by the same standards of behaviour as any other member of the Council of Europe?
    The Prime Minister: We do expect that of Russia. The Foreign Secretary said that he will raise the issue with his opposite number. I assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that I always raise the issue of Chechnya with President Putin, but I do so in a way that recognises the point that, as a result of terrorism emanating from extremists based in Chechnya, the Russian people have also suffered a very great deal. It is worth pointing out the fact that, when we finally won the conflict in Iraq, some of the people who were still offering resistance were extremists from Chechnya. Yes, it is important to raise the issue of human rights, but it is also important that we support Russia in its action against terrorism. It is also fair to say that, as a result of President Putin's political initiative, there is now a chance of a proper political solution in Chechnya. I hope that we can agree both on the need for human rights and on the need for a complete end to any form of terrorism emanating from Chechnya.
    Dr. Ian Gibson: My right hon. Friend will be very aware of the explosion in information in the medical sciences. Indeed, Britain is in the forefront of that. We are to have a genetics White
    356
    Paper next week, and there are new drugs, new treatments and new technologies, including the favourite of the Prince of Wales: the grey goo nanotechnology. Will he therefore resist the efforts of the European Union directive to prevent full clinical trials, funded by the national health service? In no way will that directive promote patients' safety, and I hope that he will join in resisting it.
    The Prime Minister: That is a valid point. It is important that, in interpreting the EU directive, we ensure that we carry on doing the trials that are necessary in this country. I know that my hon. Friend has fought for this for a long time. It raises some of the issues that I mentioned a few moments ago. It is important in relation to these questions that we proceed on the genuine basis of science. Science is a vital part of our industry. My hon. Friend's point about clinical trials is right, and we will certainly take it into account when we come to discuss how we will implement the EU directive.
    Mr. George Osborne: The Home Secretary said with characteristic candour this morning that it was blindingly obvious that the Government reshuffle had been mishandled. Will the Prime Minister say with uncharacteristic candour who was responsible for that?
    The Prime Minister: As we will discuss in a moment, I stand fully behind the changes—[Interruption.]—and when we debate the statement, the most interesting thing will be to see whether the leader of the Conservative party agrees or disagrees with those changes.
    Kali Mountford: For many of our constituents, general practice is the most important face of the NHS. In some areas, however, it is difficult to recruit new GPs. I appreciate the fact that investment has helped to produce more doctors than ever before—and more in training than ever before—but what more can be done to ensure that newly qualified doctors see general practice as at least as important as acute medical care?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of primary care; indeed, our health care system is based on it. What we are doing is introducing a series of measures—including money, incentives and payments—to encourage people into the health service as general practitioners, particularly in areas that are under-doctored at the moment. Additionally, we have a programme in place to introduce GPs from abroad to help boost our numbers. My hon. Friend will know that, since the Government came to power, there has been a huge increase in the number of nurses as well GPs, though we still have a lot further to go.

Changes to Government Departments
12.31 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): On Thursday, we announced changes to the office of Lord Chancellor and changes in respect of the posts of Secretary of State for Scotland and Secretary of State for Wales.
At present, judges are, effectively, selected by the Lord Chancellor. It is increasingly anomalous for a Minister—and an unelected one at that—to choose judges in that way. Following the Human Rights Act 1998, such a system is particularly outdated. The selection of judges should be by a transparent process, independently conducted. We propose to establish an independent judicial appointments commission to recommend candidates for appointment as judges on an open basis—something long advocated by many inside and outside the legal profession. There is already such an independent commission in place for selecting judges in Scotland and one forms part of the agreed settlement in Northern Ireland. The Lord Chancellor will also cease to sit as a judge, and the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords will become a fully independent supreme court.
As we said on Thursday, all those proposals will be subject to extensive consultation processes, with consultation papers issued prior to the summer recess. Both require legislation to pass through both Houses, so there will be ample time to debate them.
There is one further change. Again, virtually uniquely of any major democracy, the Speaker of the Upper Chamber is a member of the Cabinet appointed by the Prime Minister, but we are now inviting the House of Lords to choose its own Speaker by a process that the House itself should determine. That will enable the speakership to be independent of the Executive, as is the Speaker in the House of Commons.
This will have a further consequence. At present, the Lord Chancellor spends many hours in every working week fulfilling his official and ceremonial duties as Speaker. However, following changes introduced by the Courts Act 1971, he is also the head of an extremely important Department of Government. He is in charge of our courts system, both criminal and civil. He manages a large part of the tribunal system, including asylum and immigration appeals, and he is also in charge of a legal aid budget of £9 billion.
We need to see major changes in our courts. The judiciary has made heroic efforts to run the courts more effectively in recent years. The former Lord Chancellor also made important and lasting improvements to each part of the system, but the continuing task of reform is immense. Thousands of trials each year collapse because defendants or witnesses do not appear, and far too much police time is wasted waiting in court for cases that cannot be heard. We still do not have a proper information technology system that links courts, prisons, the Crown Prosecution Service and the police. We need hugely improved co-ordination between all parts of the system. There are real problems with the way victims and witnesses are treated: in too many parts of the country, they are still put in the same waiting areas as the accused.
The Department is a major public service department with nearly 12,000 civil servants. Yet, because of his duties in the House of Lords, the Lord Chancellor—and
358
his predecessors—did not, until last Friday, even have his private office and permanent secretary in the Department, but rather in the Palace of Westminster.
For all those reasons, it is surely better that the Minister responsible for that Department concentrate on running the Department rather than on being Speaker of the House of Lords, sitting as a judge and selecting the judges. The size of his task will expand with the creation of a unified courts administration and a unified tribunal service. He will continue to ensure the independence of the judiciary and will also work to ensure that the court system provides an increasingly efficient service to the public.
As for the posts of Secretary of State for Scotland and Wales, following devolution, there is no longer a requirement for there to be Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales who hold only that office: their roles can be combined with other posts. The civil servants in the Scotland Office and the Wales Office will be part of the Department for Constitutional Affairs, so as to ensure that they do not move should the Cabinet Ministers change. The new Department has responsibility for the devolution settlement and the new Secretary of State, like the Lord Chancellor before him, will remain chairing the main Cabinet Constitutional Reform Committee. Oral and written questions will continue, as now, to be answered by the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales.
The reforms that I have outlined are essential acts of constitutional modernisation. They follow on the success of devolution to Scotland and Wales, the Human Rights Act 1998, freedom of information, and the removal of 90 per cent of the hereditary peers from the House of Lords. All those changes are now seen—at least on this side of the House—as welcome and permanent changes to our system of government. I am confident that the changes I have set out today will in time be regarded in the same light. I do not believe that any party in this House will reverse any of those changes, and I commend them to the House.
Mr. lain Duncan Smith: It is customary on these occasions for the Leader of the Opposition to thank the Prime Minister for making his statement, but the person who deserves all our thanks today is Mr. Speaker, who forced the Prime Minister to come to the House to account for the most botched, bungled and damaged reshuffle in modern times. Today is a humiliation for the Prime Minister. Today he stood up and attempted to justify the decisions that he made last Thursday by saying that it is all just a consultation process.
The reality is that the Prime Minister has already made up his mind. The fact is that not one word of what he has just said was available on Thursday when he made his decisions. He could have used this reshuffle to sort out the public services. We all know what is needed, and so does he, but the reality is that he did none of that. Instead, he used his reshuffle to charge headlong into change for change's sake, to launch a series of rushed measures that he has now accepted he has not thought

359
through, and which were determined by infighting and refusal by members of his Cabinet—[Interruption.]
The Prime Minister has abolished by decree the office of state referred to specifically in statute 500 times and which has vast powers over the daily lives of every single person in the entire system of justice—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. The House will listen to the Leader of the Opposition with the same respectful silence as it listened to the Prime Minister. We have to maintain a calm attitude, not only for the better prosecution of business, but so that those who watch our affairs will be suitably impressed.
Mr. Duncan Smith: The truth is that the Government are running scared. Every one of their lackeys has been briefed to act as an air-raid shelter for the Prime Minister. Last week, the Prime Minister ripped up the constitution in a matter of hours, without consultation. He made monumental changes on the back of a Cabinet reshuffle, as though our constitution were the Prime Minister's personal plaything and as though only he had the right to make the final decision. He wants people to believe that this is a fuss about nothing and that somehow everybody else is scared of change, but we are not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, you are."] Oh, no.
Every political party accepts that the British constitution is constantly evolving, not only under Labour but under other parties. That is its great strength—the evolution of the constitution. The point is not whether the constitution should change, but how it should change. Our constitution should be changed only after thought, consideration and proper debate, both inside and outside Government. The constitution is not owned by one political party or even by the Prime Minister. It cannot be changed by whim.
Those are not just our words. Lord Donaldson, the former Master of the Rolls, was asked whether there had been consultation. He said: "As far as I know, there's been absolutely none. I think that it is totally topsy-turvy, Alice in Wonderland stuff."
Indeed, as Lewis Carroll wrote, "Sentence first—verdict afterwards." That is just what the Prime Minister has given us.
I have a question for the Prime Minister. What will he do if the changes that he has put forward today are rejected in the course of the consultations? He has made his mind up already. Is he going to withdraw the changes? Is he going to admit that he is wrong? Is he going to say that he is sorry? I doubt it.
Even today, almost a week after his reshuffle took place, there remain very serious questions for the Prime Minister. On Thursday, his Downing street website said:
"The Prime Minister's Official Spokesman said that in the transition period Lord Falconer would not fulfil either the judicial function of Lord Chancellor or the role of speaker."
So can the Prime Minister explain why Lord Falconer on Friday was hauled to the Woolsack to admit that he was both Lord Chancellor and Speaker of the House of Lords?
360
On Thursday, we were told that the Lord Chancellor's job had been abolished. On Friday, we were told that Lord Falconer was Lord Chancellor after all. Yesterday night, the list of Ministers was finally issued, five days after the reshuffle. This is what it said about Lord Falconer's post:
"Lord Chancellor (for the transitional period)".
That is the Lord Chancellor's new position.
Will the Prime Minister tell us how long the transitional period will last? What time scale is involved? Lord Falconer said that the transition would take three years. The part-time Leader of the House said on Tuesday that it would take 18 months. How long will it take?
Will the Prime Minister also explain how the independence of the judiciary is guaranteed by an appointments commission that will be appointed by him? How will that happen? What role will the Home Secretary play in appointing the members of the commission?
If the Prime Minister is so serious and sorted-out about this matter, perhaps he can say how he will separate himself from his own power to recommend to Her Majesty the Queen who should fill the Law Lords' positions. Will the right hon. Gentleman, as part of the changes, now get rid of that power that he holds—yes or no?
I turn now to the Department for Constitutional Affairs. Will the Prime Minister explain why the Scotland Office said last Friday morning that it had been abolished and was now part of the DCA, while the Wales Office stated that it had not been abolished and remained independent? I quote from the Wales Office statement:
"Across the road at the Scotland Office, they are rudderless and there is confusion on their part. They are taking down their old signs but we are not."
Later that day, the Scotland Office suddenly decided that it existed after all, and changed its statement. It stated:
"Alistair Darling has confirmed the Scotland Office still exists but has been merged into a bigger department. I don't have any more details, we are still trying to get to grips with all of this."
I tried to get to the bottom of the—[Interruption.] Labour Members can shout as much as they like, but they will not escape the fact that this reorganisation is botched, bungled and totally wrong.
Today, I went to the Downing Street website—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ooh!"] I went to the website to find out just what the Prime Minister thought about whether there was a Welsh Office or a Scottish Office. This is what it said:
"We are sorry."
That is not a bad start.
"The page you are looking for cannot be found. It might have been removed, had its name changed, or may be temporarily unavailable."
In fact, today the Prime Minister has contradicted what his right hon. Friend the part-time Secretary of State for Wales said yesterday. What the Prime Minister has said is completely different:
"The civil servants in the Scotland Office and the Wales Office will be part of the Department for Constitutional Affairs, so as to ensure they do not move should the Cabinet Members change."

361
On Tuesday, the part-time Leader of the House said:
"I have already answered that question. The Scotland Office exists. It exists as it did before Thursday, as it does now, and as it will in the future, as does the Wales Office."—[Official Report, 17 June 2003; Vol. 110, c. 237.]
That is yet another change in 24 hours—more chaos, and more confusion.
Will the Prime Minister tell the House whom the civil servants will report to? Will the two part-time Secretaries of State report to Lord Falconer? What are the statutory functions of the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs? Where is his budget coming from, and under what authority? [Interruption.]
Labour Members do not want to listen to any of those questions. They simply do as they are told by their master's voice—any decree, any time, any place will do for them. But there are serious questions. [Interruption.] Who, ultimately, will take decisions—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House really must behave itself.
Mr. Duncan Smith: Does the Prime Minister agree with the former, full-time, Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who said when he was shadow Health Secretary that once health had been devolved to the Scottish Parliament,
"it is not possible for me to continue as Minister of Health, administering health in England."
Does the Prime Minister agree that it is bizarre that the new Health Secretary for England will push through policies that have been rejected by the Labour Administration in Scotland and which will not affect his own constituents? Is the Prime Minister really telling us that not one English Member among all the lackeys behind him is capable of running the Department of Health?
The Prime Minister did not bother to tell his own Cabinet—[Interruption.] Well, let me ask him this: when did he discuss the changes with his Cabinet? On what day did he do that, and with whom? [Interruption.] When did he discuss them? Most of his Cabinet do not have a clue what he said. His own Home Secretary said that he thought that the comings and goings on Thursday and Friday could have been communicated more effectively.
What I say to the Prime Minister is this—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These are important matters that should be heard with equal fairness on both sides of the House.
Mr. Duncan Smith: The Labour party does not care about the constitution. All it cares about is gerrymandering the constitution so that it can have its people in the right place at the right time. That is the charge. The Prime Minister is guilty of fiddling with the system without consultation. He has sacked his boss, promoted his flatmate and fiddled throughout.
362
The one clear message coming from the Government from last week's botched reshuffle is that neither this House nor the British people can have any faith in the Government. We cannot believe a word the Prime Minister says any more.
Hon. Members: More!
The Prime Minister: Let us first deal with consultation. We said on Thursday that there would be consultation papers by the end of the summer on the independent judicial appointments commission and the fact that the Lord Chancellor would no longer sit as a judge in the House of Lords. Of course, both changes would have to be subject to Acts of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman asks how long the transition will take—it will take as long as the Acts of Parliament. Of course, we will have a full debate in both Houses of Parliament about it, so the idea that there is no consultation or chance for debate is plainly absurd.
As for the speakership of the House of Lords, again, as we said on Thursday, that will be subject to their Lordships' wishes—it is up to them. I would have thought that they would welcome the chance to have an independent Speaker in the House of Lords, nominated by them. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman asks why we do not ask them. We are asking them. That is exactly what we are doing. That is why, until they agree, we cannot change the position, but we want them to agree because it makes sense for the modern world.
Let us suppose that the Speaker in the House of Lords was elected by that House at present and I said, "I'm going to change that. I'm going to have a Cabinet Minister doing that job." Imagine the outcry that there would be then. All we are proposing is that the other House have charge of selecting its own Speaker as we do here. How that is a move to dictatorship baffles me.
The one thing that I never heard from the right hon. Gentleman was his position on the changes. He says that I am perpetrating this terrible constitutional outrage. Does he agree that there should be an independent judicial appointments commission? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"] Let's have some quiet. He said that there has been no consultation. I am consulting—I am asking him now. Does he agree with an independent judicial appointments commission? He cannot tell us—[Interruption].
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he has made a statement and the questions are put to the Prime Minister. I think that we will make more progress if we maintain that traditional balance.
The Prime Minister: We do not know either whether the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) agrees to the Lord Chancellor being a member of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. What is the Conservatives' position? We do not know, but we do know their position on the Secretary of State for Scotland—in their last manifesto, they advocated getting rid of that as a separate office.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's statement about how much he wants all Scottish affairs to be dealt with by Scotland and all English affairs to be dealt with by

363
English Ministers, who is his shadow Secretary of State for Scotland? The hon. Lady in question sits for a constituency in the London borough of Bromley. Here we are with this great constitutional outrage and the Conservatives cannot even tell us whether they are in favour of the changes or against them. They are outraged "don't knows". It is no good the right hon. Gentleman pointing his finger. He should give us his position.
The fact is that these are sensible, modernising changes, which have been sought for many years. They involve the Prime Minister giving away power rather than keeping it. They are of a piece with the changes that we have already made. Of course, when we proposed devolution, the Conservatives said that it would lead to the break up of the United Kingdom—now, they support it. When we proposed the Human Rights Act, they told us that it was a constitutional disgrace—now, they support it. When we told them that we wanted hereditary peers out of the House of Lords, they said that it was terrible—and they still think it terrible. Now, the right hon. Gentleman wants to fight to the death to keep the Minister in charge of our court system in a full-bottomed wig, 18th century breeches, and women's tights, sitting on a woolsack rather than running the Court Service. That says a lot more about the Conservative party than about the Labour party. If that is the centrepiece of the right hon. Gentleman's electoral strategy, roll on the election.
Hon. Members: More, more!
Mr. Charles Kennedy: My colleagues and certainly those on the Labour Benches will be relieved to know that I simply want to put some brief questions to the Prime Minister. Of course, that is a reflection of my own inadequacies as I have not benefited from the tremendous mechanism known as the No. 10 website.
The Prime Minister is well aware, as is the House, that the Liberal Democrats have long been urging further constitutional reforms upon the Government. Our two parties co-operated in opposition and we saw the fruits of that when Labour came to power, and we would like the progress on constitutional reform to continue. Therefore credit is due for the package that has been announced. As Ministers have indicated, however, that has been somewhat overshadowed by the confusions and fracas that accompanied it. Listening to the Prime Minister make his statement I thought that the more its content was analysed, the greater the case became for having had a proper White Paper with an accompanying consultation process.
First, the move towards the creation of a supreme court is both overdue and very welcome. The Liberal Democrats' only regret is that it does not go far enough. We would prefer the establishment of a department of justice, bringing criminal and civil justice together under one head. Will the Prime Minister say whether he has ruled that out in his own mind or whether it could be a legitimate part of the consultation process, even if it means renewed debate with the Home Secretary and the Home Office as a whole?
364
The Government have a practical difficulty in that there are no fewer than 500 different references in statute to the existing role of the Lord Chancellor. The Prime Minister says that we can make good progress. In abolishing the role of Lord Chancellor, how long does he envisage that it will take to delete or amend those references accordingly? There are a lot of them.
Of course we welcome the independence of judicial appointment for judges, but will the Prime Minister also acknowledge that the present system tends to favour unduly barristers who appear regularly in the higher courts, thereby discriminating against solicitors, women and those from ethnic minorities? Does he agree that that is a pertinent question that should be considered in the consultation process?
On the changes to the Wales Office and the Scotland Office, would it not make more sense to create a department of nations and the regions? In the context of the statement made this week by the Deputy Prime Minister—we certainly welcome the moves towards consultative referendums and the hope of more regionalism within England—could not all those be brought together in one huge territorial department in the longer term?
On the proposal that there should be a department for constitutional reform, is it not something of an anomaly that that would be presided over by a Cabinet Minister who is not answerable to the elected House of Commons? We want to consider the anomalies associated with the role of Lord Chancellor, but we must also be conscious of the anomalies that the proposals would create.
Finally, will the Prime Minister acknowledge that there is one yawning gap in the plans outlined for further constitutional reform? It is the predominantly unelected nature of the upper House. Now that he has appointed a new leader of that House who is himself in favour of a democratically elected second Chamber, will he give his backing to that further move in that direction? Can the consultation process involve a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament, and obviously all Opposition parties? If we had had a greater and more sensible level of consultation, could we not have avoided some of the difficulties of the past few days? Is not that one of the important lessons to learn from this recent episode?
The Prime Minister: First, I take it from that that the Liberal Democrats are basically in favour of the proposals. I therefore find it odd that so many of them voted with the Conservatives against the proposals last night. Anyway, perhaps that should not really be a matter of surprise.
In respect of the point about the supreme court, that will be part of the consultation process. We announced last Thursday that two consultation papers on each of these major issues will be put to people before the summer recess. The proposals will have to be introduced, of course, through an Act of Parliament, which must go through this House with debate and through the upper House with debate. Therefore, the idea that there will be no debate or consultation is patently absurd, because of the process that we need to go through.
As for a ministry of justice, I am not in favour of that. Let me explain to the right hon Gentleman why that has never been proposed by the Government or me. It is

365
important that we keep the criminal law and criminal justice system with the Home Secretary in respect of police fighting crime and other issues. What we have been trying to do over the past few years is to move out of the Home Office some of the constitutional functions so that it can concentrate, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is doing so well, on law and order, fighting crime, antisocial behaviour and asylum and immigration issues. That is why the Lord Chancellor's Department is obviously going to deal with many of the constitutional issues that the Home Office has been dealing with up to now.
In relation to solicitors and ethnic minorities, the right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. That is one of the reasons why people have thought that it is better to have a more transparent and open system.
I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned this because I was going to point this out if he did not. He has put forward the Liberal Democrat proposal in relation to the Secretary of State for Scotland and Wales, which effectively means getting rid of those posts and having one Secretary of State for the nations and regions. Of course, that is one possible avenue. The reason I do not think it is the right one, however, is that it would be very odd then in circumstances where, let us say, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was Secretary of State for the nations and regions, to go up to Scotland as Secretary of State for Scotland, effectively speaking for Scotland— [Interruption.] There is a debate about those issues, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman can see that there would be anomalies in the position that he puts forward, too.
In relation to the issue of an elected upper House, I have already said that that should be a matter in which Members of Parliament should have a free vote. There will be different views: different views exist in the Cabinet, and, I am sure, in the shadow Cabinet. There are different views in the right hon. Gentleman's party, too. The most important thing, however, is that we have a debate as Members of Parliament and that we decide. My preoccupation on this issue has always been that we must not end up replicating the House of Commons in the House of Lords. That would be a mistake, and it would not help our constitution.
Mrs. Helen Liddell: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that, with the constitutional changes put in place last week, the unfinished business of John Smith and Donald Dewar is now finished? There is now a stable constitutional arrangement for Scotland. strengthened within the United Kingdom with robust arrangements that ensure that, regardless of the political upheavals, that relationship will remain strong. In addition, with declining electoral support for the Scottish National party in Scotland, the job of nat-basher-in-chief is no longer needed, as the nationalists do it very well themselves.
The Prime Minister: I thank my right hon. Friend for her comments. I also thank her for the part that she played in making the devolution settlement successful. It is worth pointing out that, when we first advocated devolution, we were attacked by the nationalists, who wanted separation and who wanted to rip Scotland out of the United Kingdom and still do, and we were
366
attacked by the Conservatives, who told us that it would lead to the break-up of the UK. What has happened is that the devolution settlement has worked, and support for nationalism is at an all-time low.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Cannot the Prime Minister pause for a moment, reflect and realise that many of those who have admired his leadership over Iraq, in all parts of the House, in both Houses and outside—and who have given him unstinting support for which he has been grateful—think that on this matter he has behaved with cavalier disdain? He has treated both Houses of Parliament with contempt and has announced changes and then said that consultation will follow. Cannot he just admit for once that he has got it wrong?
The Prime Minister: First, whatever I say to the hon. Gentleman, I say it with respect for him, not merely for the support that he has given me over Iraq but for the work that he has done in the House for a very long time. Of course, when the Government believe that certain changes are necessary, we make the announcement saying that these are changes that we wish to make. Issues are bound to be raised, however, and I ask him to bear it in mind, as we said last Thursday, that there will be two consultation papers: one on the independent judicial appointments commission and the other on the role of the Lord Chancellor in relation to the courts. In relation to the speakership of the House of Lords, we have made it clear that we can only make those changes if the House of Lords agrees. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that there will be the opportunity for detailed consultation and debate, as there should be.
Andrew Mackinlay: In relation to the Lord Chancellor, it was a good proposal but with poor presentation. May I consult my right hon. Friend on one idea that might flow from it? Would he consider—I hope that he will have an open mind on this—a reform whereby Ministers of either House could appear in either House, rather than Members of both Houses having to rely on parrots replicating Ministers' utterances at questions? It seems to me that the architects of legislation should pilot that legislation in both Houses. For example, Baroness Amos should be subject to scrutiny and able to answer in this place. Allowing Ministers to appear in both Houses would be a very good reform that I would hope he would support.
The Prime Minister: I apologise for not having been radical enough in the reforms that we have put forward. I am afraid that I can see some difficulties with what my hon. Friend suggests, but I have no doubt that he will have an opportunity to discuss it with other Members and build up support for it.
Mr. Roger Gale: Earlier this afternoon, the Prime Minister told the House that these proposals will be subject to extensive consultation. Like so much that the Prime Minister has said recently, that is patently untrue. In the first line of his statement, he says, "We announced the changes". He knows that he has announced the changes and that the consultation is meaningless. The Prime Minister has delusions of grandeur, but he is not the Head of State. There is a

367
Head of State. When did he consult her and inform her that he was going to abolish 1,400 years of constitutional history?
The Prime Minister: Consultations have taken place in the normal way. In respect of the point made by the hon. Gentleman at the beginning, it is obvious that if the changes that I have announced must proceed through an Act of Parliament, both Houses of Parliament, of course, must agree to that. I do not know how else we announce the Government's position but by announcing it. That is what we believe. What I still do not quite understand about the extraordinary outrage of Opposition Members is whether they agree with the propositions or not. Surely their outrage must in some shape or form be determined by whether they think the proposals are right or wrong.
In respect of the point about 1,400 years of history, it is correct that the post has existed, in different ways, for 1,400 years, but it is also correct that, occasionally, we should evolve and change our constitution. The question is therefore whether the change is sensible or not. Before the change comes through, the House will be able to make its decision known, and the other place will be able to make its decision known, exactly in accordance with our constitution.
Mr. Win Griffiths: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be aware that some time ago the Welsh Assembly Government established the Richard commission to look at the workings of devolution from the point of view of the Welsh Assembly. In the light of his announcements on Thursday and developments over the weekend, will he set up an ad hoc committee of this Parliament to look at the devolution process from the perspective of this Parliament?
The Prime Minister: I understand entirely my hon. Friend's point. Of course, we will await with interest the outcome of the Richard commission. I must say, however, that it is probably better to discuss this matter in the usual way in government.
Mr. Andrew Mackay: What possible reason could there have been for rushing the reshuffle through last Thursday, when clearly it had not been properly thought out in detail and has caused the Government great embarrassment? Was the Downing street spokesman correct when he said that it had to be last Thursday because of Lord Irvine? Why could not Lord Irvine have stayed in place a little longer?
The Prime Minister: First, let me specify again the changes that we are proposing. They are changes to do with an independent judicial appointments commission, the fact that the Lord Chancellor should no longer sit as a judge and that the speakership of the House of Lords should be held by an independent person, nominated by the House of Lords. I do not think that there is any great confusion about those proposals; they are perfectly simple and straightforward. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with them or not? I do not suppose
368
that we shall be told. On consultation, as I have pointed out, the latter proposal can be carried out only with the agreement of the House of Lords and the first two require an Act of Parliament, therefore it is a little odd to say that I am rushing them through without consultation when actually both Houses of Parliament will have to agree them.
Tony Wright: I welcome the proposals, in particular that for a supreme court, which was recommended in a recent report from the Public Administration Committee. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the proposals mean that the Government now have their second wind in respect of constitutional reform, so that on issues such as Lords reform and civil service legislation, we shall see the same decisive radicalism?
The Prime Minister: We should judge that on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Bearing in mind the nature of the devolution settlement in Wales, does the Prime Minister realise how important a strong Wales Office is to the passage of Welsh legislation? After all, this place is the only Chamber that can legislate for Wales. Does he realise that it is extremely offensive to Wales to sweep away the Wales Office as he has done, and that his four sentences today have compounded that offence?
The Prime Minister: The Secretary of State for Wales will occupy his office and carry out his post with another job—
Mr. Llwyd: Part-time.
The Prime Minister: Is the hon. Gentleman a Welsh nationalist?
Mr. Llwyd: Yes.
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is in favour of getting rid of the job altogether. He cannot come to this place and tell me that the job is not full-time enough. If the Welsh nationalists had their way, Wales would not even be part of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Apart from the important and mistaken decision to put the new Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs in the wrong place, I am entirely supportive of the measures that the Prime Minister has proposed, and I do not normally say that. However, has not my right hon. Friend put the cart before the horse? Should not we have debated the possibilities first, so that the error in the appointment of the new Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs could have been avoided?
The Prime Minister: First, I thank my hon. Friend for his support for our proposals, which is all the more gratifying for its rarity.
Secondly, as I have pointed out, there may have been a misconception. The independent judicial appointments commission and the question of whether

369
the Lord Chancellor sits as an appellate judge4 in the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords have to be dealt with by legislation. There will be ample time to debate those things in the House of Lords and, obviously, in the House of Commons, too. That is why the notion that what happened on Thursday was somehow all suddenly implemented by Monday is not right.
Mr. John Redwood: Can the Prime Minister tell us the costs of the changes that are already going through and of the changes that he would like to put through? Could it be that this is rather an expensive way of getting rid of an old man in tights? Might it have been cheaper to buy him a pair of trousers?
The Prime Minister: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman exact details of the costs, but I hope that he will agree that making sure that the Lord Chancellor is actually concentrating on the core business of running the courts system is actually a far more efficient use of his time.
David Winnick: I welcome the changes, which are long overdue, but can my right hon. Friend explain why the appointments that he made last week include people with titles such as Vice-Chamberlain and Captain of the Queen's Bodyguard of the Yeoman of the Guard? What on earth does the Master of the Horse do? Clean the horse? Is not it time that, in a mature democracy such as ours, we got rid of such Ruritanian titles and jobs, the wigs, the gowns and the swords, including in the House of Commons?
The Prime Minister: I think that we have been radical enough for the moment.
Mr. A.J. Beith: Does the Prime Minister realise that these important and necessary reforms will get off to a pretty bad start if it remains unclear whether he is talking about a supreme court in the American sense of a constitutional court, or merely removing the Law Lords to sit in another building? There are certainly genuine anxieties at present about just how independent the judicial appointments commission will be and they could remain, especially when we have a Home Secretary who says:
"I just like judges who help … us to do the job."
The Prime Minister: I think that is unfair on the Home Secretary, who has said that he fully supports the independence of the judiciary.
With the greatest respect, people cannot have things both ways. There are issues to be resolved about the precise nature of the supreme court. That is why we said that a consultation paper would be issued before the recess. It is also why debates will be held in both Houses. All the issues can be resolved then.
Mr. Graham Allen: On the point about rushing to judgment in this matter, does my right hon. Friend agree that, 10 years ago. as shadow Home Secretary, he won the Labour party conference over to a judicial appointments commission, a ministry of justice, judicial independence and a Select Committee
370
on legal affairs? It is rather like saying that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister was rushing into regional government when he made his announcement earlier this week when, in fact, he started campaigning on the issue more than 20 years ago.
In the week when those policies have finally come to fruition, I urge my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to stay with the big picture and leave the pygmies opposite to suck up the media trivia. He should re-read the speech that he made 10 years ago, when he stated that
"Labour would abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a"—
democratic second Chamber—
"with a new electoral system".
My right hon. Friend is at his best when he is at his boldest.
The Prime Minister: It is always worrying when previous speeches are quoted back. However, my hon. Friend is right to say that many of the changes that we are advocating have been advocated for a long time by many people inside and outside this place. I come back to the main point. The whole basis of the changes that we are making—rather like the devolution changes—is not that we retain power, but that we give it away. I am going to be giving away the ability to nominate the Lord Chancellor, who sits in the Cabinet, is the Speaker of the House of Lords and appoints the judges. I find that proposition odd in today's world, when, surely, there should be clear separation between Executive, legislature and judiciary.
Mr. Edward Garnier: In the light of the nature, tone and content of the Prime Minister's statement, is it right that the principle of the supreme court and the judicial appointments commission is a given and that the consultation exercise will simply be about the mechanics of the principles that he has announced?
The Prime Minister: We have set out what we want to do as a Government. That is how Governments announce their policy. They say, "That is what we want to do." There is then a consultation process, which we shall initiate with the consultation papers. After that, there will be a debate in both Houses—I emphasise "both". Of course there will be debate.
We have set out our view that there should be an independent judicial appointments commission, but it will be for this House and the other House to debate the details of that. For the life of me, I cannot see why that is a wrong process.
Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Prime Minister give us an assurance that he would not contemplate appointing Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales from English constituencies such as Beckenham and Ribble Valley?
The Prime Minister: We have no need to do so.
Mr. Peter Duncan: The people of Scotland know that this botched reshuffle has done nothing to address the problems of the Scottish

371
economy or our air transport problems. In concluding the consultation on air transport, does the Prime Minister expect his part-time Secretary of State for Transport to advocate more use of the London hub airports, or his part-time Secretary of State for Scotland to advocate more direct flights to Scotland? What will happen if they disagree?
The Prime Minister: I thought that the hon. Gentleman did pretty well. He should be shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, but he is not because someone sitting for Bromley has that post.
On the part-time point, I remind the hon. Gentleman that he was elected on a manifesto that stated:
"We will keep the position of Secretary of State for Scotland with the holder of that position also having an additional UK role within the Cabinet."
I have just implemented the policy on which he was elected.
Mr. Chris Bryant: The British constitution has many pantomime elements, but is the Prime Minister surprised by the pantomime antics of the Tory party? Yesterday, we had Widow Twanky and today we had Buttons, who could not recognise a decent constitutional change if it was lying in his bed when he came home at the end of the day. Is not the truth that, when we were redrafting the German constitution in the 1940s, this country insisted on precisely the changes that we are about to see, and that what was good for Germany in the 1940s is good for Britain now?
The Prime Minister: I do not think that we will take that too far. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend has got Conservative Members on a sensitive point. Of course, the point that he makes in relation to the constitutional changes is right, and I would simply point out that the Conservatives opposed the constitutional changes in respect of devolution, that they opposed the minimum wage and that they have opposed virtually every constitutional change. We still have not heard—perhaps someone will ask them at some point in the next few days—whether, if these changes are so terrible, they are pledged to reverse them. We should be told.
David Burnside: Will the Prime Minister inform the House what advice he received from his Cabinet. Secretary before he announced these constitutional changes? When the Prime Minister is formulating his strategic planning for constitutional change, which role model does he prefer: the constitution of the first French Republic after the revolution, or our constitution after the Glorious Revolution of 1688?
The Prime Minister: It is a bit much, when 1 am giving away the power to anoint—appoint, I should say.
372
[Laughter.] It is a bit much, when I am giving away the power to appoint the Speaker of the House of Lords, to say that it is the equivalent of the French revolution. That is a somewhat extreme statement, and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, like other hon. Members, would have welcomed the fact that I will have given up power if these changes go through, which is why I hope that he and others will support them.
Vera Baird: Can my right hon. Friend convince the Leader of the Opposition that women cannot have great faith in a judiciary that is 95 per cent. male and that ethnic minorities cannot have great faith in a judiciary that is almost 100 per cent. white and excludes anyone like them? Are not the Tories simply being reactionary? They want judges to carry on being picked, by secret soundings and tittle-tattle in Pall Mall clubs, from among white men from the upper middle classes—a group only a little less representative than they are.
The Prime Minister: To be fair to my right hon. Friend the former Lord Chancellor, he made many changes in this area, but the point that my hon. and learned Friend makes is right, and it is one of the reasons why things should be transparent and open. Frankly, I believe that that is the way that virtually every other western democracy makes its judicial appointments, so that it is done in an open way. I commend to the Opposition the speech recently made by Chris Patten. [Interruption.] He is a bit of a no-no for them now. He used to be chairman of the Conservative party in the days when it was roughly sane. He said that it is very important to realise that, in this day and age, it is not acceptable for judges to be appointed by a process that, as he put it, was a bit akin to the old magic circle that used to appoint leaders of the Conservative party. It is worth reflecting on that. Surely, in this day and age, it is better to appoint judges by an open and transparent process. How that is dictatorial, I do not know.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Was it Lord Falconer's performance as a flatmate or as Minister in charge of the dome that particularly recommended him for promotion?
The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman reflects on the job that my right hon. Friend did, not merely in respect of housing and planning, but on criminal justice and the police, he will see that he did an absolutely superb job.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must now move on.

Domestic Violence
1.23 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on domestic violence.
Today, I am publishing a consultation paper outlining proposals to help to prevent and tackle the consequences of domestic violence. I pay tribute to many right hon. and hon. Members, including the Attorney-General; the Solicitor-General, who is here this afternoon; my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham); my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche); the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton); my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran), and other members of the interministerial and all-party groups. I do so because I do not believe that there is any difference between political parties on this issue.
Domestic violence accounts for a quarter of all recorded violent crime. One in four women experience some form of violence from their husband or partner during their lifetime. Every week, two women die as a result of such violence. All violent crime can destroy lives, but domestic violence is usually a hidden crime. All too often victims suffer silently, afraid for themselves and for their children. The trauma and long-term effects suffered by children is incalculable. Domestic violence can occur irrespective of background or circumstance, but it is predominantly women who suffer.
Our consultation paper builds on the proposals that we made in last year's White Paper on criminal justice. Preventing domestic violence in the first place is at the heart of our proposals. Research shows that one in five young men and one in 10 young women believe that violence towards a partner is sometimes acceptable. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that that is never the case. If we are to prevent such violence, we must ensure that all young people understand that basic truth. It is necessary to increase understanding of the nature of domestic violence to ensure the correct response from professionals, including teachers, doctors and those in the social services, the courts and the police service.
Alcohol and drug misuse are major factors in domestic violence. We already have in place a strategy to tackle drug misuse. Later this year, the Government will publish a national harm reduction strategy, focusing on alcohol. I believe that all hon. Members agree that the home should be a place of safety. Sadly, for those affected it is a place of fear. Therefore, the second strand of our strategy is about protection for victims. The response of the police to domestic violence is crucial. Victims need reassurance that early intervention will be forthcoming. That is why we propose to make common law assault an arrestable offence, so that, at the time of the attack, suspected perpetrators can be instantly removed from the scene.
I also welcome the work being undertaken by the inspectorates that are carrying out a major review into how the Crown Prosecution Service and the police
374
handle domestic violence cases. Victims are often deterred from reporting violence and appearing as witnesses because of the handling of domestic violence cases. They are afraid of reprisals and what many see as the shame that such violence brings. That is why we are proposing to allow victims and witnesses to apply for anonymity. We would welcome views on that issue.
A number of specialist courts have been developed, demonstrating greater expertise and support for victims. In Leeds and Cardiff, domestic violence courts have increased co-ordination between agencies and the civil and criminal jurisdictions. We would welcome views on how further to develop such specialist facilities.
I think that we all agree that the civil and criminal law must be improved better to protect victims. We are therefore proposing some important changes. We wish breaching non-molestation orders and occupation orders to become a criminal offence, giving the police new powers to arrest in all cases where they believe that that is warranted. We intend to widen the availability of restraining orders under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. They should be available when there is insufficient evidence for a criminal conviction but sufficient justification for safeguards to be put in place. When appropriate, we will allow orders to be imposed at the time of charge, pending trial. The courts should have powers to impose restraining orders for any violent offence, not just the limited range under current law.
At present, the police have no way of telling whether a person has a civil order against them. That is why I am seeking views on whether to create a register of civil orders. Such a register would mean that the police would know at the time of being called to a domestic violence incident whether the suspect had breached an order and could thus be automatically arrested. In addition, I am reflecting on the suggestion of creating a broader register of domestic violence offenders. However, there are complicated issues that we need to think about and our minds are not closed on the issue. I should make it clear that access to any such register would be strictly limited. There would be a danger that wider access could deter victims or their families from coming forward.
We must ensure that sentences reflect the crimes committed. The sentencing advisory panel will consider domestic violence homicides and, additionally, the Attorney-General will issue new guidance to the Crown Prosecution Service on domestic murders. I am also referring to the Law Commission the defences offered in homicide cases. I shall ask it to focus particularly on how provocation, self-defence and diminished responsibility operate in domestic violence cases. The defence of provocation, for example, often relies on sexual jealousy as justification for murder. That is not acceptable.
Contact between children and their parents should be encouraged, but the welfare of the child must be paramount. We will amend contact and residence application forms so that judges are aware of allegations of domestic violence at the beginning of proceedings.
The third strand of our strategy is to provide practical support to victims. A total of more than £61 million is being spent on domestic violence this year, with

375
£33 million being invested in new refuge accommodation over the next three years. The first 24-hour national helpline for victims of domestic violence will be established and it will be supported by a database of safe accommodation and local services.
It is vital that we also find ways of helping victims of domestic violence to stay in their own homes. We would welcome views on how best to achieve that, including views on re-accommodating the alleged perpetrator. Victims of domestic violence whose immigration status is being decided currently have no access to public support. It is our belief that all victims, whatever their circumstances, deserve our help. We shall enable places of safety to be offered, and help to support victims of violence in such circumstances.
The consultation paper is about improving prevention and providing support for victims. We must ensure that perpetrators understand that domestic violence will not be tolerated. The proposals that we are setting out today will be a further step toward that goal. We will seek to change attitudes and help victims to break free from the cycle of violence and abuse. No woman, man or child brings domestic violence on themselves. No one should have to put up with it; the abuse is unacceptable. I am therefore asking all sides of the House to support taking the measures forward, and I commend the measures to the House.
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: First, I thank the Home Secretary for giving me prior notice of the statement.
We welcome the Government's announcement on domestic violence. It brings a subject that has been taboo out into the open where it can be debated and better dealt with. The reason I am responding as shadow Minister for Women is not because we see this as exclusively a women's issue, for there are male victims and their plight is seriously underreported, but because we accord the highest importance to the fact that two women a week die as a result of domestic violence. I have a personal interest in the issue, having launched a poster campaign last Christmas to publicise where victims can get help.
There is no question but that the criminal justice system fails victims of domestic violence, but the Government need to be careful not to introduce unenforceable legislation in an area in which lives need to be saved. Legislating for unrestrained human emotions is not easy. Will the Home Secretary reassure the House that consultation will be as wide as possible and that it will involve not only main agencies, survivors and their families, but ethnic minorities and men's and grandparents' groups, because domestic violence casts a long shadow over the extended family?
At present, the courts feel like a hostile place to victims. Specialist courts represent progress toward improving the judicial response to domestic violence. Do the Government have any plans to extend these beyond the three to which the Home Secretary referred? Does he agree that the fact that over 50 per cent. of domestic violence cases receive a harsher sentence on appeal indicates that the judiciary requires more specialist training?
376
Research that shows how many young people think that violence is a normal part of their relationships highlights why prevention is a key issue. Do the Government intend to incorporate teaching on anger management and non-violent communication in the school curriculum? Perpetrator programmes are notoriously unsuccessful. Does the Home Secretary accept that changing a person's behaviour needs to start much earlier in life and to be reinforced by society's view that domestic violence is not okay?
I welcome the Government's announcement of new funds for refuges. Will the Home Secretary join me in applauding volunteers who have campaigned tirelessly to secure even the present level of one refuge per 200,000 of population? I know that figure to my cost because I have been trying for years to get a refuge in my constituency. I am appalled that there are more animal sanctuaries than refuges in this country. It is estimated that about 40,000 women are on the move in refuges every week. Such caravanning around the countryside of vulnerable women and children who are looking for somewhere to hide and sleep is barely credible in the 21st century. Does he accept that it is a fundamental injustice that the victim moves out of the family home and loses assets, status and security while the perpetrator tends to remain?
The Government must be careful not to overlook the needs of the child when reforming legislation on domestic violence. Four out of five children who run away from home say that they do so to escape family conflict, violence or abuse. What is being done to safeguard the wishes of children who may not want contact with a violent parent or who suffer mental anguish due to the guilt of not having protected their abused parent?
It is not only improving legislation that will make a difference; practical help is at least as important, if not more important. It is quite extraordinary that there is a view that if victims are housed in a safe place, they will get on with their lives as if nothing had happened. Does the Home Secretary agree that there needs to be much more assistance in the aftermath of such a traumatic experience?
The subject of domestic violence is so serious that there can be no question of gesture politics. The Home Secretary refers to the first 24-hour national helpline, but the charities Women's Aid and Refuge already run a 24-hour national helpline. The Government's initiative was announced for the first time on 11 December last year, but it is still not up and running. Does the Home Secretary accept that failing to meet the raised expectations of such a vulnerable group exposes him to the serious allegation of playing politics? When does he expect the helpline to be fully operational?
Homicide reviews are all very well, but how many will it take before we finally learn the lessons? The experience of the Victoria Climbiè case shows that crimes committed behind closed doors are the most difficult to prevent and are in most need of prompt and effective intervention by agencies, which all too often allow a case to slip through the net.

377
We kid ourselves that we live in a civilised society. That cannot be true when such a high number of fatalities are too often dismissed with the phrase, "It's only a domestic."
Mr. Blunkett: I am happy to have the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) opposite me at the Dispatch Box and would be happy to repeat the experience. I assure her that no one will play politics on the issue. Whatever the gripes about the delay in setting up the helpline, we are making an offer, as the statement demonstrated, to work together in the interests of those who are dying and being abused every day—one woman is abused every minute in this country. I make that offer again because the subject transcends party politics and shows Parliament at its non-political best.
We need to be careful that legislation neither raises false expectations nor ends up being unenforceable. I am happy to take views on that. The consultation will be as wide as possible. My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, Baroness Scotland and I visited a refuge and centre in Camden today. We promised that the victims, as well as those who work with them, will be an essential part of the consultation. I accept entirely the point that the hon. Member for Meriden made on that.
Specialist courts have proved their worth. With a new, invigorated partnership between myself and the interim Lord Chancellor, we should be able to make rapid progress. We will certainly be able to do that on training. Lord Falconer and I jointly visited the judicial studies board just few weeks ago and we are keen to work with it on building up expertise. In those circumstances where there is no specialist court, we propose to combine cases so that they can be handled by someone with the relevant expertise on a particular day in a particular week.
Teaching at an early stage is vital. In addition to teaching citizenship and democracy and providing personal social and health education, we need to spot early youngsters who display aggression and to take action on that. I want to discuss with the new Minister for Children how we can develop the children and young persons unit, and those investing in education, in a more positive way than has been possible in the past.
The refuge provision is important. Some £19 million more is being spent this year than last year. I agree entirely, however, that "caravanning" people around the country is unacceptable. The damage to children in particular is incalculable because it disrupts the life and well-being of the family. That is why we want to find ways of getting alleged perpetrators out of the house and, when they are found guilty, keeping them away from the home. The Solicitor-General and I will talk to the Attorney-General about whether we should change the terminology of the orders so that people understand clearly what they mean.
Again, I thank the hon. Member for Meriden for 99 per cent. of what she said and her welcome of the measures. I look forward to us all taking them forward together.
Julie Morgan: May I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and congratulate him on the consultation paper? I assure him that women in Wales will be pleased that the
378
Government have recognised how vital and serious the issue is and that they are comprehensively planning to tackle it further. I thank him very much for that.
I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend is keen to involve victims in the consultation procedure. Will he assure me that the consultation procedure will be extensive and include women and other people in Wales? Will he ensure that Wales is fully brought into the consultation? In particular, will he involve the trade unions? I pay tribute to the work that the trade unions, especially Unison in Wales, have done to bring the issue to the forefront in the workplace.
Mr. Blunkett: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her work in Wales. I am aware of the establishment of the centre in Cardiff, which has been a beacon for activity. Not only will we consult widely in the terms that we have laid down, but we will be happy to hear from hon. Members on both sides of the House about what we could reach out to in their locality. There will be three months of consultation. We want to introduce legislation in the new Session of Parliament because people will expect us to get on with it, but we want to do that properly and will be happy to consider suggestions on the nature of the scrutiny of that legislation before we present it to Parliament.
Simon Hughes: Domestic violence is a huge, horrible and unacceptable part of our national and home life. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), who speaks on women's issues for the Liberal Democrats, and I welcome the statement, the consultation paper and many of the initiatives proposed. Our party will respond constructively, positively and urgently to the proposals in the paper.
We share with the Home Secretary the view that education is as important as anything else and cannot begin too early. Can I assume from what he said that the first and perhaps central message is that from now on—if it was not the case before—no police officer in the land will regard allegations of domestic violence as something that they should not immediately pursue on the basis that it is a domestic matter and not for them? Can he assure me that no court in the land will regard alcohol or other drugs as an excuse for violence at home?
Are statistics on domestic violence now kept separately, both nationally and locally? Is the Home Secretary satisfied that at a local level the advice is in place so that things do not get to a crisis point at which people have to leave home? Most importantly, will he work with his colleagues so that each local authority has the assurance, as my local borough of Southwark has, that the police and the local authority will act together with no bureaucracy and no delay to ensure that people get the refuge, sanctuary, housing, support and advice when they need it and for as long as they need it to look after the families affected?
Mr. Blunkett: I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman's support. I assure him that not only are the police committed to doing the job singly, they are now committed, through the multi-agency panels and multi-agency reviews that are being undertaken on incidents of domestic violence, to ensuring that we have a joined-

379
up system at a local level in which they work closely with other agencies and partners. I pay tribute to the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police Federation for the way in which they have worked with us.
Many of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members have been close to the subject and have shown tremendous commitment to it. They will know that there has been a transformation in the approach that the police have taken to domestic violence incidents in recent years. They accept, and we accept, that there is still progress to be made, not least in terms of their response time and the immediacy of what is requested, as the hon. Gentleman said. I guarantee that we will give every possible support to those working with the police in making that progress possible.
I agree that we need clear statistics. The British crime survey provides us with a better route than merely relying on recorded crime. Part of our task is to get people to come forward and to demonstrate that they need no longer fear having the crime recorded. We have some way to go before we get a totally accurate picture of what is taking place in society. The statistics that we have are horrendous enough, but we believe that they may well not give the full picture. In that spirit, I welcome the other propositions from the hon. Gentleman. I know that we can do a good job together, as the all-party committee has done, in making sure that on this matter, if on nothing else, we are all in unison.
Ms Debra Shipley: I welcome my right hon. Friend's thoughtful statement. The elements that it contains have been argued and pleaded for by the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence, which my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) has chaired with such great commitment. Does my right hon. Friend understand that there is something missing from his statement? I refer to outreach services to keep women in their homes, and in particular services for children who are affected. There is a serious gap in all services for children affected by domestic violence. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to put real commitment and the necessary resources behind those?
Mr. Blunkett: I thank my hon. Friend. I accept that resources are needed, as well as a reshaping of services more broadly for youngsters who are emotionally and behaviourally disturbed. Tackling the causes, through prevention and early intervention, is at the root of what we are discussing this afternoon. Many youngsters are traumatised by the experience of seeing domestic violence. A third of children have seen domestic violence, and that rises to 50 per cent. where repeat offending takes place. It is an horrendous, traumatic experience for those youngsters, which they carry for the rest of their lives.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) would speak, but one of the penalties of being promoted to the Whips Office is that she is not allowed to address the House on these occasions.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I welcome today's statement and the consultation paper.
380
As the Home Secretary knows, there have been some particularly tragic cases in Norfolk, such as the Lauren Wright case. The right hon. Gentleman is also aware that many of us come across cases in which there has been a serious domestic disturbance; all too often the police are called but cannot or do not do anything about it, and then there is a recurrence. What is needed is a power of arrest so that the attacker is arrested immediately. The Home Secretary also mentioned the extra work that would be put on the shoulders of the police and the extra commitment that they will have to make. What does he intend to do about extra police resources? How many extra police officers will be required?
Mr. Blunkett: On the first point, I accept entirely that the constituency issues that the hon. Gentleman raised require a multi-agency review of the cases that have taken place. A review is needed of the speed with which people operate. I have outlined changes to the sentencing advisory panel and the work of the Law Commission in response to the request that we are making.
On the second point, I do not wish to be the least bit aggressive. The 4,300 extra police last year—we will shortly announce updated figures—demonstrate a real commitment. I also want to make it clear that the rise in violence generally in this country is accelerated by domestic violence, with a quarter of all violence being domestic violence and one in four women experiencing domestic violence. If we can direct resources to tackle that terrible abuse, we will see a reversal of the broader figures, which worry all of us.
Ms Sally Keeble: May I welcome the consultation paper, which represents progress on several fronts for victims of domestic violence? I especially welcome the strengthening of the child contact procedures to ensure that proper assessment of the risk to children arises from contact orders. What steps will be taken to make sure that we progress the initiative jointly undertaken by the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Treasury to ensure proper funding for child contact centres? My constituency is keen to have one under the initiative. It is important that there are properly managed contact centres where estranged and absent parents can maintain contact with their children.
Mr. Blunkett: That is essential. Under the changes announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last week, the responsibilities of my hon. Friend the new Minister for Children in the Department for Education and Skills will include aspects of the work of the Lord Chancellor's Department that dealt with domestic and court issues. It will be for her to take the matter forward. I will give every support, as will my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and Lord Falconer, to ensure that there is a sensible and reasonable settlement so that the centres can be expanded as quickly as possible.
Lady Hermon: The Home Secretary is aware that domestic violence is a serious problem in Northern Ireland, and that in recent weeks I have been frustrated and angry that the Criminal Justice Bill did

381
not extend to Northern Ireland from the outset. Can he therefore confirm that the welcome proposals that he announced today will extend to Northern Ireland?
Mr. Blunkett: We are liaising directly with the Northern Ireland Office. As the hon. Lady knows better than I do, in some respects Northern Ireland has been ahead of the consultation laid out today for England and Wales, not least in terms of arrestability and the way that cases are dealt with. I offer the proposal that the draft Bill should incorporate for Northern Ireland those aspects that are relevant to Northern Ireland and that are not already part of Northern Ireland practice. I thank the hon. Lady again for her assiduousness in making sure that we never forget.
Mrs. Ann Cryer: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend recalls that just after we were elected, we issued a discussion document entitled "Living without Fear". Quite a chunk of that document was devoted to the work that schools could do to challenge behaviour. I know that my right hon. Friend has commented on that, and I appreciate the thrust of his announcement, but since the discussion document, not a great deal has been done through schools to work against macho and bullying behaviour. Could schools from nursery onwards be encouraged to challenge macho attitudes and violent behaviour, and could teachers get involved with children—often quite small children—who are witnessing violence at home? Certain sections of certain communities do not regard domestic violence as a problem. My suggestions would be a way of protecting women in the future.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I say to the House that shorter questions, and perhaps shorter answers too, will enable me to call the maximum number of hon. Members?
Mr. Blunkett: I shall heed your words, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), who has done an enormous amount locally, and done so bravely, by taking on sensitive and difficult issues. Yes, we must challenge those views—both from parents who make that behaviour seem acceptable, and from youngsters who make it seem normal to their peer group. It is not acceptable, and we must get that message across to all sections of our—for it is our—community.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: May I warmly welcome the statement? From a practitioner's point of view, making common assault an arrestable offence is a sensible suggestion, as is the proposal that breaches of non-molestation orders and occupation orders should become criminal offences, with police having the power of arrest where warranted. Those important steps forward will deal properly with many incidents. The register of civil orders is another important innovation. I congratulate the Home Secretary and hope that I shall be able to play some small part in the consultation process.
Mr. Blunkett: This is one occasion when I can be brief. Let us reach out together through the English and the Welsh languages to get this one sorted.
Judy Mallaber: May I particularly welcome the timing of the document, which enables me
382
to launch it locally tomorrow at the annual general meeting of the East Derbyshire domestic violence forum? I echo the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) to consult trade unions and employers organisations. At my last workplace, it suddenly dawned on me that one of my staff found work a place of refuge from the violence that she suffered at home. It was important for me to give her time off to visit the local housing department and a quiet place to make phone calls, and to try to give support. Another member of my staff suffered violence, went back to her husband and disappeared, and we do not know what happened to her. It is important to develop workplace policies and I hope that that will be taken on board in the consultation.
Mr. Blunkett rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that that was a question.
Sandra Gidley: Evidence shows that a history of domestic violence is linked with a history of violence against children. The access arrangements have recently been relaxed and far more men who have a history of violence are being allowed unsupervised access to children. Does the Home Secretary believe that, if men realise that they may be denied such access, they might think twice before hitting their wives?
Mr. Blunkett: I think we all agree that men should think twice anyway, but we need to get a situation in play in which men respect the fact that they have a critical role in terms of their children and that if they behave in such a way, access will be either drastically restricted or removed all together. I think that that message should get through. We want to ensure that that happens in full consultation with employers and trade unions, and all those whom my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) mentioned.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I do not apologise for asking a male question. Pursuant to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), may I ask an autobiographical question? When I was a young teacher, I was desperately concerned about the plight of a boy whose family I thought were in great difficulties. I reported the matter through the usual channels and was then much criticised for meddling. All right, it may be a matter of suspicion, but what protection can be given to teachers who act in good faith and are in a position to know, and meddle, perhaps wrongly, in what is a desperately important subject for all of us?
Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. When I was at the Department for Education and Employment, as it then was, we set in train a protocol to protect teachers in such circumstances, including from counter-allegations.
Ms Oona King: May I thank my right hon. Friend for prioritising this issue and pay tribute to the astonishing commitment of the Solicitor-General, who has transformed the approach that is taken to domestic violence? Women and children around the country will thank her for doing that.

383
I am haunted by the case of my constituent who was attacked by her estranged husband last year. Following the attack, which was made on a Friday, she rang the police and said that she was in danger. Her husband returned on the Saturday and murdered her and her daughter. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that more protection will be given to victims when they first approach the police and other authorities?
Mr. Blunkett: I can give that assurance. That is why the proposals determine that immediate action should be taken and that the law should be changed to make action possible immediately and on a charge being made, rather than at the point when sentencing takes place. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend about the role of the Solicitor-General, who has made my life a lot easier in so much of the work that she has done.
Linda Gilroy: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and take this opportunity to congratulate him on having a formidable team of women, including four women Ministers, who all have a track record in this area?
My right hon. Friend mentioned the difficulties in getting victims to come forward as witnesses. One of those difficulties is the number of occasions on which courts cancel hearings. That is evident from what women in Plymouth tell me and from the internet consultation that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) set in motion as chairwoman of the all-party group on domestic violence. Will he say a little more about whether there are any early lessons in respect of the special courts that he mentioned? May I urge him to ensure that the review of the Crown Prosecution Service and the police will consider the matter in a robust way?
Mr. Blunkett: I can assure my hon. Friend that it is crucial that we see this issue as part of criminal justice reform in terms of cracked and failed trials, listings and management of the court system in general, so that we can get this right. We will learn the lessons from the courts. I point out that there is a fifth woman Home Office Minister, in the House of Lords, and I know that she will be committed as well.
Kali Mountford: While I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and especially the review in respect of homicide cases, may I ask him also to look closely at cases of assault? All too often, the courts hand out sentences that merely reinforce offending behaviour. That can happen when a woman reports a serious assault, but only a charge of criminal damage is brought with regard to the man having kicked down a door to get at her. That sort of sentence does not do anything to give women confidence. Neither does the response of the police, as the policies of a division may be good, but they do not always filter through to the constable who makes the arrest. Will he also ensure that police at all levels are properly trained to respond appropriately when they are called upon?
Mr. Blunkett: On training and speed, the answer is yes. On common assault and the immediate work of the
384
Sentencing Advisory Panel, we are asking that body to do the work rather than waiting for the establishment of the sentencing guidelines council. We all accept that we need to get on with this.
Vera Baird: May I, too, welcome this wide-ranging and thoughtful statement and compliment the Secretary of State and the Solicitor-General on the depth of the consultation in which he has already engaged in order to formulate the proposals?
I am sorry that there is no reference to support being made available for children in refuges. I urge my right hon. Friend to recognise that he should consider that issue. About two thirds of children who accompany their mothers in such places have been abused themselves and clearly represent a vulnerable sector. In so far as contact is considered, will he ensure that it is looked at very closely indeed? The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service estimates that, in 16,000 contact cases last year, domestic violence had occurred in the marriage before it broke up, yet contact was refused in only 700 cases. Finally, when does he expect the consultation to turn into legislation?
Mr. Blunkett: On the latter point, I hope to publish a draft Bill in the autumn, to consult widely about it and to introduce legislation with all-party support in the next Session. I recognise entirely that where there are gaps, we must fill them. It is a genuine pleasure, which I will not take for granted, to have my hon. and learned Friend's support.
Ms Julia Drown: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and, in particular, his intention to widen the availability of restraining orders. Will he consider introducing non-controversial powers in advance of the domestic violence Bill? In particular, will he consider introducing exclusion orders that could be associated with assault, through which domestic violence cases are often brought to our courts at the moment? As I understand it, such provision could be introduced now under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. Will he consider that issue? The sooner we can give domestic violence victims the confidence that they will be protected if they come forward and report a case, the better it will be for everybody.
Mr. Blunkett: My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and other colleagues will look into the matter immediately. I shall not only write to my hon. Friend, but ensure that we include any action plan in the conclusion to the consultation so that we do not wait for legislation, but take forward measures in the interim.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his welcome statement and the Solicitor-General for the understanding and commitment that she has shown in respect of the case of my constituent Paula Watt's twin sister, Madeleine Humes, who died after being stabbed by her husband 12 times in 15 minutes in front of her children? The husband received a sentence that, with remission, could be a mere three and a half years, with earlier day release. Will consideration also be given to whether children's

385
safety and welfare can properly be protected if there is a possibility of their subsequently being given into the custody of the killer?
Mr. Blunkett: On the latter point, that is why it is so critical that we are readjusting the evidence provided when the cases are taken in terms of custody. That will be a crucial change. The first point clearly underlines the crucial nature of introducing the new sentencing principles and framework, within which the judges will now exercise a different sort of discretion.
Ann Keen: May I, too, pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend, as well as that of a former Member who is sadly no longer with us, Jo Richardson, who did so much and would today be so proud of this Government and the forthcoming Bill?
What work will be done with the health service and, in particular, front-line nursing and medical staff in accident and emergency or even primary care? Victims are rarely able to have consultations on their own, and when it comes to the words "How did you do this?" or "How did this happen?", the truth seldom emerges. I believe that it takes up to 60 visits by victims to nursing or medical staff for it to do so. I would like very much to know what work is being done in the health service.
Mr. Blunkett: I have an advantage here, in that my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears) has been elevated from her post in the Department of Health to that of Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety. She tells me that a pilot scheme is under way involving a range of questions to be asked automatically in such cases. I welcome that, as I know my hon. Friend will. Training is important, and that should include training people to spot instances in which someone needs to be able to speak quietly and privately to a nurse or female doctor—not least so that photographs can be obtained which may prove crucial later.
I am very happy to associate myself with memories of Jo Richardson, whom I knew extremely well.
Jane Griffiths: I, too, welcome the statement.
Does my right hon. Friend share my slight concern about the fact that this is one of the few parliamentary occasions featuring a large preponderance of female Labour Members? I hope that does not mean that our male colleagues are not interested in the important issue we are discussing.
During the consultation, will my right hon. Friend work with Berkshire Women's Aid in my constituency, and also with Sahara, whose particular involvement is with women from ethnic minorities? A national 24-hour helpline is very useful, unless it is not available in languages that women can understand.
Mr. Blunkett: I think we are all genuinely committed to this issue, and a message to that effect needs to be conveyed today. I commend the work that is being done for ethnic minorities in Berkshire and elsewhere. The issue of anonymity is crucial, given the cultural response that can be made to this sort of terrible abuse.

Points of Order
2.12 pm
Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Having witnessed the Government's production of act II scene ii of "Iolanthe" this afternoon, I want to ask about questions to the Lord Chancellor's Department.
When I went into the Table Office—this was the day for tabling questions to the Lord Chancellor's Department—I was informed that such questions would now be under the rubric of the Secretary of State of Constitutional Affairs. Not only is the Lord Chancellor now a shadow Lord Chancellor, however; the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs has no statutory functions. How, then, can a spokesman for the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs be accountable to the House of Commons in respect of budgets and other matters arising from the Consolidated Fund and so forth? I am thinking in particular of the salaries that are so relevant to the independence of the judiciary in relation to the Supreme Court Acts from 1891 to 1981.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but the issue is far too detailed for me to handle. I suggest that he table a very detailed question to the appropriate Minister.
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Yesterday—this can be found in column 233 of Hansard—the Leader of the House told us that the designation "former Scotland Office" that appeared on the Order Paper had been drawn up by House authorities rather than the Government. Under persistent questioning, he repeated that a number of times. The same was said by the Secretary of State for Scotland to the Scottish Affairs Select Committee yesterday.
I have good reason to believe that the designation came to the House authorities from the Scotland Office, probably last Friday. If that is the case, is it not reasonable to raise a point of order about protection of House officials from suggestions by Ministers that they were responsible for an inaccuracy—and also about protection of Members from being misled? No doubt the misleading was inadvertent, but the Government do seem rather desperate to conceal the confusion and chaos that lay at the heart of the reshuffle.
As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is difficult to ask specific parliamentary questions about such matters because of our terms of reference. Can you advise me on how we can establish from the new Leader of the House whether what I say is accurate?
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I deal first with the point raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)? The Order Paper is drawn up by officials of the House acting on information that they gather from a number of sources. I cannot say more than that at this

387
stage. As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's point of order, I suggest that he consult the Table Office, which I am sure will be able to help him.
Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a very substantial point of order, particularly as it relates to civil servants who may not be sure to which Minister they are responsible.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps there is a shortage of clarity in the House at present, but it is not for me to comment on that.
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think you know that I am very much in favour of robust exchanges in the House, which bring it to life. You may also know, however, that today, during the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition following the Prime Minister's statement, there was an unusually high—some might say unacceptable—level of orchestrated barracking from Labour Members on your side of the Gangway. Worse than that —you may not be aware of this, Mr. Deputy Speaker—a number of Government Whips were placed strategically on the Back Benches, and seemed to be playing a leading role.
If all that turned out to be true, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would you or Mr. Speaker be able to do anything to prevent the Government from using paid Ministers—for Whips are Ministers—to orchestrate the attempted silencing of the Leader of the Opposition, or indeed any other Member? This is a serious matter. I observed what happened, as did many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. We really need to know whether we collectively, and the House as a whole, can be protected against such abuse by the Government and by Ministers.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that any organised barracking of the kind described by the right hon.
388
Gentleman would always be deplored by the Chair. I am sure that the Chairman of Ways and Means, who was in the Chair earlier, dealt with the matter adequately, but I think that all of us—the occupant of the Chair, and the House of Commons as a whole—should take seriously what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At Question Time today, the Prime Minister was asked yet again about the appearance of Alastair Campbell before the Foreign Affairs Committee as a witness. As I think Hansard will confirm, the Prime Minister told the House that officials did not appear before Select Committees as witnesses.
You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that is patently not true. We learn from page 2305 of today's Order Paper that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is to take evidence from Sir Brian Bender, permanent secretary to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and that the Treasury Sub-Committee is to take evidence from Sir Nicholas Montagu, who is—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I wanted to deal with the point of order fairly quickly. If the hon. Gentleman is asking whether it is normal for officials to appear before Select Committees, the answer is yes.
Mr. Fabricant rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think I have dealt with the matter.
Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the same point of order?
Michael Fabricant: It is a different point of order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think I have dealt with it.

Domestic Violence (Law Reform)
2.18 pm
Mr. John Bercow: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to domestic violence.
I think I owe you and the House an explanation, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I booked my slot approximately three months ago. It is one thing to hear a satisfactory policy announcement from the Government after one has spoken in favour of a change in the law; but to hear a satisfactory policy announcement from the Home Secretary before one has even opened one's mouth is an example of pre-emptive gratification which I hope will be emulated many times in the succeeding weeks, months and years of this Parliament.
I say at the outset, consistent with the non-partisan spirit of the exchanges on the statement, that I was enormously encouraged by what we heard from the Home Secretary. It was a truly ground-breaking statement of intended social reform upon which I warmly congratulate him. We also heard a typically gracious, probing and constructive contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and, likewise, from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). How right it is that those exchanges should have taken place in the way that they did.
In the period since I was elected in May 1997, interest in this House in the subject of domestic violence has been reflected in no fewer than 365 written questions, 74 oral questions and at least eight Adjournments debates initiated by Members from all parties. As we go forward by debating the consultation document, there is a real prospect that a genuine change in the law and in attitudes can take place that will be of enduring benefit to millions of people—predominantly, though admittedly not exclusively, women.
The Home Secretary explained the factual background to his decision to make the statement and to issue the consultation document. Perhaps I may express the point in a slightly different way. Last year, according to the British crime survey, about 635,000 incidents of domestic violence took place. An assault on a woman takes place approximately once every 26 seconds, from which it logically follows, I am sorry to have to say, that in the period for which I am on my feet with the privilege of addressing the House on this momentous issue, some 20 attacks on women will take place. Two women a week die as a result of domestic violence. We learn from the World Health Organisation that, as a cause of death and disability, domestic violence now plays a bigger role than cancer, road accidents and war. That is the seriousness of the situation. Of course, enormous costs are involved—not only the human cost in terms of the terrible toll of individual suffering and personal misery, but other costs, too. There are costs to the criminal justice system and to the national health service and social services, as well as a significant cost to the economy in consequence of the fact that many thousands of women are too sick or traumatised to work.
I am glad that the Home Secretary said that the Government intend to expand the supply of refuge places. He was absolutely right to do so, because there
390
is significant pressure on places. In the Thames valley region, of which my constituency forms a part, refuges in Aylesbury, Milton Keynes and High Wycombe are full to bursting. They often have to turn people away and encourage them to find a place elsewhere because they cannot be accommodated. That is a terrible indictment of a civilised society, and the Home Secretary is right to seek to change the situation for the better.
I should like, by way of a legislative proposal of my own, to set out an offering that I hope that Ministers and other Members of Parliament will be prepared to consider. First, I commend to the Home Secretary the idea of a national domestic violence register that includes people who have served custodial sentences and possibly those who have been subject to restraining orders or court injunctions. That could be in the interests of suffering women, of the police going about their work, of the statutory and voluntary agencies engaged in co-operative work to tackle domestic violence, and of employers undertaking job checks on people who seek employment. In that sense, I suggest that there is an imperfect but relevant analogy between the proposal for a national domestic violence register and the sex offenders register.
Secondly, I impress upon the Home Secretary the importance of pressurising the Crown Prosecution Service, through much stronger guidance, ordinarily to pursue prosecutions even when the victim does not wish to do so. If there is neighbour testimony, photographic evidence or clear proof of injury, there must be a public interest argument for going ahead with prosecutions. Half of all cases are dropped before they get to court, in four fifths of cases because women are too fearful to proceed. Let us try to imitate what happens in Minnesota in the United States, where the presumption on which public policy proceeds is that prosecution, even without the victim's support or involvement, is the norm, not the exception.
Thirdly, I suggest that the Government are right to seek to amend the Children Act 1989 to underpin the responsibility of the court to satisfy itself that the child and his or her mother will be safe in cases of contact with the offending parent. I am glad that the Home Secretary mentioned that in his statement. If he has trouble with the business managers finding a legislative slot, I am not a proud man, and I would be very happy to use my ten-minute Bill as the vehicle by which he can achieve this welcome change in the law, which commands all-party support.
Fourthly, there is a case, as was emphasised by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) and others, for an expansion of specialist children's services. There should be people in refuges specifically to attend to the needs of children. Therapy sessions should be available, and doctors and teachers need to be trained to identify children who are suffering or at risk, so that effective action can be taken as early as possible to help those young people.
Fifthly, I strongly believe that there is a powerful argument for trying to emulate what is done by Sunderland city council's housing authority, which has a tenancy agreement that allows for the removal of a domestic violence offender and his placement in a refuge or shelter himself in order that he can get therapy and the chance of rehabilitation. That is, of course, a

391
debatable point. Many women will want to flee to get away from the harrowing and vicious environment in which they have suffered, but the presumption should not be that it is always the woman who has to move out.
Finally, the Government are right to consider waiving the rule that says that people whose nationality status is uncertain and who are awaiting determination of their immigration cases should have no access to public funds. They need income support and housing benefit, and a means by which to live and to get legal guidance. I welcome the Government's intention to change the law in that respect.
Much remains to be done. Too many people in this country and elsewhere have suffered too much over too long a period. It is extremely welcome that the Government intend to act, and the Opposition are right to take a sympathetic and constructive approach. We support the principles and will back much of the detail. My Bill is available for the purposes of the Government if they would like to take advantage of my offer. I appeal to the House again to show itself at its best by supporting this measure as a demonstration of our commitment to tackle one of the most abominable evils in this society at the present time.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Bercow, Michael Fabricant, Sandra Gidley, Jane Griffiths. Mr. Robert Key, Mr. George Osborne, Linda Perham, Mr. Anthony Steen, Ms Dari Taylor, and Mr. Robert Walter.

Domestic Violence (Law Reform)
  DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (LAW REFORM)
  Mr. John Bercow accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to domestic violence: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed [Bill 126].

European Affairs
[Relevant document: The Twenty-fourth Report from the European Scrutiny Committee of Session 2002–03, on the Convention on the Future of Europe and the Role of National Parliaments (HC63—xxiv).]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]
2.29 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): The Greek presidency of the European Union will host the European Council in Thessaloniki tomorrow and on Friday 19 and Saturday 20 June. Today, the House has its customary opportunity to debate the Government's priorities.
The summit is important. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the president of the Convention on the Future of Europe, will submit a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union to the heads of Government of the member states and the candidate countries. The draft is the culmination of 16 months of negotiation by national delegates and representatives of the European Commission and the European Parliament. I pay tribute to the British team, whose members are my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), Lord Maclennan, Lord Tomlinson and Baroness Scotland. Of course, representatives of different parties approach the issue from different viewpoints and that is entirely right. However, all members of the team sought assiduously to represent the interests of their party.
Brokering a text between representatives of 15 member states as well as the 13 candidate countries was never going to be easy, but the Convention's draft treaty provides a good starting point for the negotiations between the member states. I emphasise that the draft is simply a basis for negotiation. Like any draft, the constitutional treaty is open to improvement and amendment. In the tradition of EU treaties, the hard bargaining and last-minute agreements prior to a final deal will be reached by the democratically elected heads of the EU's constituent parts—the nation states—by unanimity.
At Thessaloniki, some EU leaders may offer specific comments on the text of the draft treaty, but the focus will be on the arrangements for the second, decisive round of the negotiations between the member states and the accession countries in an intergovernmental conference. I expect EU leaders to endorse a broad mandate for the IGC. Member states and the accession countries should be able to re-examine all articles in the text and not be restricted to any points of contention that Valery Giscard d'Estaing identified. That was the clear recommendation of European Foreign Ministers in their meeting in Luxembourg on Monday.
Mr. Jim Marshall: I thought that I would ask my right hon. Friend a question while he is clearly in a good mood. He referred to the constitutional aspects of the Convention's proposals. He will remember that one of the other objectives of the Laeken

393
summit was to try to connect EU citizens to the Union. Does he perceive anything in the Convention that is likely to forward that objective? 1, for one, cannot.
Mr. Straw: I can. I know that my hon. Friend shares my view that the Convention, if it is implemented as we would like through the IGC, will not be a magical instrument that suddenly transforms the EU's reputation for opacity into one for clarity. The structure is complex, not least because of member nation states' desire and determination to ensure that they keep control of the EU, which is their property. Whereas here, decisions are made by simple majority, which is clear cut, in the European Union they are rightly made either through qualified majority—almost the equivalent to a two-thirds majority in a national Parliament, but more complex—or by unanimity.
Let us consider the way in which the Convention could make the system clearer. First, there will be a clearer understanding of the nature of the institutions. That is already starting to happen. There will be a single text. As my hon. Friend knows, the Opposition go on about how dreadful the idea of an EU constitution is. However, there is currently not one EU constitution but a series of constitutions in four separate texts. It is far better to amalgamate them into one, with some intellectual and legal hierarchy.
Secondly, part of the purpose of a president—not a permanent president, as the Opposition claimed this morning, but one elected for two and a half years, with the possibility of a double term of five years—is better and more effective representation of the European Council, which is the council of nations, in the EU. That will affect the balance of power, and is therefore important.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House successfully pushed for national Parliaments to be much more involved in the proposals for European legislation. Any proposals for European law will have to be communicated to national Parliaments, which will scrutinise them. If more than a third object—that could easily happen with 25 national Parliaments—it serves as a yellow card, or warning, to the Commission. I want those arrangements to be upgraded, but at least we have a start.
Fourthly, there is greater clarity in the constitution because when EU powers exist, that is made clear in language that people can understand: for example, EU laws are called "laws". They are currently called regulations, and we tend to view them as resembling byelaws. However, EU regulations are a form of law, and they should be called laws.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Straw: I shall give way shortly.
Fifthly, there will be much debate about the fact that in some respects, EU law can override domestic law. "Benchmarks" today refers to
"the tests Blair must not fail".
Nobody could pass such tests because they bear no relation to reality. The Conservative party's document says that an EU constitution that overrides national constitutions must be excised. The idea that the French,
394
Italian and German constitutions are overridden by an EU constitution is bizarre. However, on matters of EU competence, EU law, once agreed, must apply to every member state. Otherwise, we could not have a Union. There is nothing new about that; the Conservative party voted and fought for it since 1971 when it negotiated entry, and section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 provides for it. I do not understand the Conservatives' curious objection to the principle 30 years later.
Mr. Michael Ancram: Earlier, the Foreign Secretary said he welcomed what he described as the yellow card that national Parliaments could show to legislative initiatives from the Commission. He said that he wanted the proposal to be upgraded. Does he envisage upgrading it to a red card?
Mr. Straw: We are considering that. It ties into qualified majority voting, under which a proposal requires a minimum of between 60 and 65 per cent. support to get through. If half the national Parliaments object to a proposal, it is palpably obvious that it cannot get through the Council of Ministers.
Mr. George Osborne: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make some progress, I shall do so later.
During the Supply day debate on the Convention last week, I emphasised my commitment and that of the Government to maximum parliamentary scrutiny of the Convention's proposals. I said then that, as a start, a full day's debate would take place in Government time early next month. There is a great deal of expertise about the European Union in all parties and in both Houses, as well as Members with strong opinions. Many, but not all, serve on Committees that are relevant to European Union work. With my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I shall consult the Chairs of the Committees, and through the usual channels, about the way in which Parliament can best be involved in the work of scrutinising the Convention's proposals so that we have a better mandate at the IGC. One of the issues that can be dealt with in that way will be how better to upgrade what is currently a yellow card into a red card. Alongside that formal consultation process, we will of course welcome suggestions and proposals from any right hon. and hon. Members, both during this debate and outside the House.
Mr. Osborne: The Foreign Secretary has identified the things in the Convention that he welcomes and those that he wants to build on when he gets to Thessaloniki. What are the two or three things that the British Government will absolutely not accept in the draft constitution?
Mr. Straw: If I may, I shall come to that later.
Mr. John Bercow: In the light of what the Foreign Secretary has said about the role of national Parliaments, how does he justify article 108 of the treaty of Amsterdam, in which we are told that Governments of the member states undertake to respect the principle

395
that the European Central Bank will take no representations from outside bodies? Does he think it acceptable in a democracy that the cost of mortgages and the price of business borrowings would hereafter be determined by people whom we do not elect, whom we cannot remove and whom it would be illegal to seek to persuade of the British national point of view?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman raises an important, if detailed, point. I confess that I am not as familiar with article 108 as he is, but I now have a copy in front of me. There is a case for greater transparency in the way in which the ECB operates, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has in any event made proposals for improvements in the monetary mechanisms inside the European Union. If, however, it is felt that there are ways in which we can improve article 108 or its successor at the IGC, let us have those proposals. If there is a strong point to be made on issues such as these, we have allies elsewhere in the Convention and among other Governments.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I do not want to disrupt the Foreign Secretary's flow, but there is one matter that should be considered with regard to the relations between this Parliament and the European institutions. It is the question of fraud in the Community. As a former member of the Budget Sub-Committee of the European Parliament, when it was indirectly elected, I know that this is a very difficult subject. There is not only the case of Andreasen; there are various others. The Public Accounts Committee of this House should surely have some locus in examining these difficult matters. I have received a long letter from the Chairman of the Committee, saying that it could not look at the particular case of a whistleblower who, in the serious opinion of his lawyers, had a good case against the Commission. Could the role of the Public Accounts Committee in such circumstances be considered?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend certainly makes a strong point. I cannot promise that I can deliver on his request, but I will promise to look into it closely. I recall that 20 years ago, when I was a junior Front-Bench spokesman on the Treasury, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), I looked closely at the level of fraud—and the paucity of detection of fraud—in the European Union. The situation has got a bit better since then, but it is still not satisfactory.
The achievement of the European Union over the past 50 years is something that people take for granted these days. Its case is often put in material terms—the end of customs, for example, and the single market in goods and services—and these are clearly important. But—to pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall)—beyond that is what the Union has done to help to make a reality of human rights and democracy. That point is often missed when making the argument for the EU.
When I was a young man, eastern Europe was surrounded by the iron curtain, and there were three right-wing dictatorships in western Europe, in Spain, Portugal and Greece. What the EU has done—first in those three countries, then in eastern Europe—is to help
396
to make a reality of human rights and democracy in those nations. Above and beyond that—as we can now see, 50 years on—the Union's most profound achievement has been to secure an absence of war.
I think about this matter a great deal, and I guess that because European nations have historically found their relationships with one another difficult, we resort to the most convoluted argument to avoid violence. That in turn has been translated into lengthy texts and sometimes totally opaque practices in the European Union. In some ways, that is a small price to pay for the avoidance of the killing fields of the Somme or Verdun, but these days it is not such a convincing excuse for unacceptable practices, particularly for those who have no direct memory of European war.
The European Union can, therefore, seem unjustifiably rule-bound and bureaucratic—it is a far from perfect organisation—so I hope that the combined effect of the Convention's proposals, its scrutiny by Government and Parliament, and the outcome of the IGC, will be a better functioning EU. But let me reassure the House about some things that will not happen. The result of any new constitution will not be to alter the fundamental relationship between the EU and its member states. Foreign and defence policy will remain intergovernmental. We will not accept qualified majority voting on tax, social security or criminal law and procedures, and "federal" will not feature as either a word or a concept.
Malcolm Bruce: Given that the Convention now appears to propose that the Union as a whole should accede to the European convention on human rights—a proposal that the Government have resisted up to now—does the Foreign Secretary now accept that that would be the best way to ensure commonality of human rights law rather than conflict? Will the Government now accept that proposal?
Mr. Straw: We are examining that issue, but there is already clear acknowledge of the European convention on human rights in the consolidated treaties, so this is not a completely new proposal.
Mr. John Redwood: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for the way in which he is involving Parliament a great deal in this process. However, does he not see the danger in the proposal in the current draft to have a very powerful unelected Foreign Minister for the EU, who would be senior to him and who would have the right to represent us in all important matters and to use our United Nations seat whenever he saw fit? Surely this represents a fundamental change in the relationship between us and the EU.
Mr. Straw: I have genuine respect for the right hon. Gentleman, and I tried to put him right yesterday in a meeting outside the House: this is simply not the case. Whether such a Minister would be senior to me would depend on the reputation he managed to achieve; he certainly would not be senior in terms of seniority.
Mr. Ancram: It could be you.
Mr. Straw: Thank you very much. If it were me, that would be fine; there would be no problems at all.

397
As for this canard, this confection, that we are going to lose our seat on the United Nations Security Council, let me tell the House that we are not. The United Nations is an association of sovereign nation states, and only nation states can exercise votes in the UN. The EU is an association of nation states; it is not a sovereign nation state.
Mr. Ancram: Yet.
Mr. Straw: I cannot predict what is going to happen in 100 years. I can, however, tell the right hon. Gentleman the terms of any proposition that will come before the House under this Government, and we will never vote for any suggestion of the European Union becoming a federal superstate. We are simply not going to do that.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: In considering the relationship between the United Nations and European states, will the Foreign Secretary also have regard to the fact that the constitution of the United Nations is of course its charter, and that only the United Nations itself can alter its own charter?
Mr. Straw: There is another point that I have made often enough about the UN charter. Returning again to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South, there is a beautifully drafted document that is very clear and much smaller than the consolidated treaties and the IGC's result, but at least that result will be better than the current treaties.
Sir Michael Spicer: The Foreign Secretary said that foreign policy would remain intergovernmental. That is the opposite of what the Convention is proposing. Does he intend to veto those Convention proposals at the IGC?
Mr. Straw: With respect, it is not the opposite of what is said in the draft constitution, which makes it clear that, while there is some subsidiary QMV, the main foreign policy decisions to achieve a common position have to be taken by unanimity. We object to some aspects of the proposals relating to a European Foreign Minister, and we will seek to have them changed. One of them, which is rather important, is in relation to the European Foreign Minister's so-called double-hatting. We believe that it should be made crystal clear that, although he or she may be a Vice-President of the Commission, he or she is not subject to the collective responsibility of the Commission, but is answerable solely to the Council.
The other area that the hon. Gentleman may have been thinking about is in draft article I-24, wherein, not only in relation to foreign policy but more generally, a power is sought, by unanimity in a six-month consultation period, to shift certain new areas to QMV. We do not find that acceptable and we will seek to change it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Straw: If I may, I will make some progress, as I have already been on my feet for 22 minutes.
398
As for the charter of rights, the draft treaty includes a statement of rights. I think that our citizens should be told the rights that they have vis-à-vis the European institutions, and we could accept such a statement provided that it does not extend the powers of the Union. This, like much else, will depend on the precise terms of the final package, but in the Convention we negotiated important changes in articles II-51 and II-52, which help to define the scope and meaning of the charter's provisions. For example, member states would be affected only when implementing agreed Union law, and the net effect of our proposals is to ensure that the charter will not extend the Union's competence or powers.
As the House will see in a 10-point summary that I placed in the Library today, the treaty creates a framework for a Union of nations, not a superstate. I draw attention to six points in the draft treaty that emphasise the role of the nations. First, the treaty will include a statement that competences not explicitly conferred on the Union in the treaty remain with the nation states. Secondly, the draft specifies that the Union shall act only if the objectives cannot "sufficiently be achieved" by the nations. Thirdly, the draft grants a new power to national Parliaments to ask the Commission to review its proposals. Fourthly, the text includes a statement that national leaders, in the shape of the European Council, shall provide the union with its political direction and priorities. Fifthly, the draft creates a new post of a chair or president to drive forward the work of the European Council. Sixthly, the text includes a reference to the fact that the current veto on foreign policy will remain.
Llew Smith: The Foreign Secretary has outlined how Parliament will be affected by the treaty. Will he comment on how Parliament will be affected as a result of article 107 of the Maastricht treaty if we go into the single currency? Does he accept that, as that article makes it illegal for democratically elected representatives or their respective institutions to try to influence the European Central Bank on the performance of its tasks, if we have a problem of poverty or unemployment in our community and we are not happy with how it is being dealt with, we will not be able to exert any influence on the Bank to change its policy? Is not that crazy?
Mr. Straw: I have just answered that question, but I will seek to answer it again. This debate, happily—or unhappily—is not about the euro. If and when Parliament passes a Bill to propose that we go into the euro, there will be the fullest possible debate in the country, because there are clear constitutional implications, and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend—unless he has a damascene conversion—will then make points such as the one that he has just made. Article 107 says that no members of the decision-making bodies
"shall seek or take instructions from Community institutions or bodies, from any government of a Member State or from any other body."
That does not stop them being influenced, reading newspapers and receiving information. The provision is there, as with the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, to ensure that they are not in anybody's pocket, and I think that in principle it is a good thing, not a bad thing.

399
The Convention's text seeks to settle the balance between the nations and the Union where it should be, with the nations as the anchor of the Union, and it makes it clearer than at any other point in the past half-century that it is the nation state that provides the Union's key source of democratic legitimacy.
The second main item for discussion at Thessaloniki will be asylum and immigration. EU leaders have long recognised the case for more concerted common action to tackle these issues. Four years ago, at the Tampere summit in Finland, an ambitious agenda was agreed, which was given a further boost at the Seville European Council last year. A joint Spanish-UK initiative set time-limited targets for the agreement of common minimum standards on asylum—
Mr. Richard Spring: And let us keep Gibraltar.
Mr. Straw: Happily, this speech does not mention Gibraltar.
The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): That is for me.
Mr. Straw: And it is in safe hands.
As I was saying, a joint Spanish-UK initiative set time-limited targets for the agreement of common minimum standards on asylum, and measures to deliver the Tampere agenda.
At Thessaloniki, the EU leaders will review progress on the package of measures agreed at Seville 12 months ago. Progress has been good. Legal instruments on minimum asylum standards have either been agreed or are due to be agreed by the end of this year. There has been an increase in operational co-operation between member states on border control initiatives. We welcome further concrete progress, and I am pleased to tell the House that it is in hand. A number of common projects are beginning to deliver results, most notably the Finnish-led common risk analysis centre, which is a vital element in the development of targeted intelligence-led operations.
In Greece at the end of the week, heads of Governments will consider three reports from the European Commission. The first is on more accessible, equitable and managed asylum systems, the second on illegal immigration returns and border controls, and the third on employment and the integration of migrants. The first report was initiated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the informal European Council in Athens two months ago. Our objective is to develop proposals for the better management of the asylum process globally, reducing unfounded applications and providing more equitable protection for refugees. We will continue to encourage the Commission to develop this work in parallel with member states and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
At Thessaloniki we will encourage member states to support the presidency's proposals for a European return fund, which will give financial support to activity
400
linked to returns of illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers and implement the EU returns action programme adopted in November.
As usual, there will be a discussion of major foreign policy and security issues at the end of the week. Following the latest spiral of killings in Israel and the Occupied Territories, we will press for the European Union, as a member of the Quartet group responsible for the road map, to urge both parties to recognise that violence only strengthens the hands of extremists on both sides, and that dialogue is the only way forward.
On Monday, at my suggestion, EU Foreign Ministers agreed to examine new measures to isolate Hamas. We agreed that we should
"urgently examine the case for wider action against Hamas fund raising."
Following proposals that I made as Home Secretary, and separate proposals in the European Union, we proscribed Hamas IDQ, the so-called military wing of Hamas, which enables us to freeze its assets and take other measures, but at the time the evidence was not considered strong enough to justify proscribing the other part of Hamas, its so-called charitable and political wing. These days, there is an increasing consensus that both organisations are, in fact, one. That matter is being examined not only here, but, at my instigation, in the European Union.
Michael Fabricant: The information that the Foreign Secretary has provided is helpful and encouraging. However, in the light of recent bombings, does he recognise that not only Hamas but Hizbollah and Islamic Jihad are involved, and that they are believed to be funded by other sovereign states in the region? Is there a role for the European Union to exert some pressure on those middle east countries that are helping to fund the terrorist groups, and will the Foreign Secretary raise the matter at the IGC?
Mr. Straw: We are going to raise it not at the IGC, but at the European Council at the end of the week. The hon. Gentleman is right that it is highly probable that some countries fund those rejectionist terrorist groups. Part of the dialogue between the EU and countries such as Syria and Iran is about ending their support for rejectionist terrorist groups.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Straw: I shall give way, for the last time, to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant).
Mr. Chris Bryant: Does not discussion of the role that the EU can play in the middle east peace process demonstrate that wherever the EU can develop a joint foreign policy, it can be far more effective?
Mr. Straw: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Where we can agree, as 25, the result of the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. We have policies in respect of the middle east peace process—and of Iran, for example, to which I shall return in a moment. We can pursue such issues bilaterally and as a member of the Security Council, but where we can get our 24 European Union colleagues on board, we are immeasurably

401
strengthened. I can also tell my hon. Friend that it has been interesting to see over the last three months how much difference the extra 10 countries can make. Most of them are instinctively in sympathy with the broad foreign policy positions of the UK Government, so the chemical balance inside the European Foreign Ministers Council has changed.
On Iraq, we will want to explore how the EU can play a significant role in political and economic reconstruction. There have been welcome signs in recent weeks that member states are prepared to set aside their differences and work together to deliver the prosperous future that the Iraqi people deserve. That will also he a theme for the discussion at the EU-US summit in a couple of weeks' time, when Greece will represent EU member states. Our advice to the Greek presidency is clear. The EU-US relationship has been the fulcrum of global order for more than half a century. It provides the strongest possible foundation for our collective effort to tackle the great strategic challenges of the 21st century, from international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, to trade barriers and economic injustice.
At the weekend, the EU's High Representative, Javier Solana, will present a "European security strategy" covering WMD, international crime and instability on the EU's borders, and we expect it to form the basis for a policy toolbox. Any effective security strategy must be backed with credible military capabilities. Again at the weekend, EU leaders will welcome the significant progress made in the last six months, particularly the implementation of the so-called "Berlin plus" arrangements, under which the EU will enjoy access to NATO assets and capabilities, and the EU's first military mission in Macedonia.
In recent days, the people of Poland and the Czech Republic have voted by overwhelming majorities to accede to the European Union next year. Their peoples had to struggle for decades against the yoke of Soviet imperialism to gain national sovereignty, so they were voting not to lose their national sovereignty inside the EU, but to share their sovereignty in order to be stronger in international relations and in Europe. Eight of the 10 candidate countries have now confirmed their readiness to join the EU next year.
The UK has always been a leading champion of enlargement. It is not just a matter of historical obligation to the half of our continent that suffered most during the cold war; it is about our national interest. Enlargement will mean more jobs, more opportunity, increased prosperity and greater security for British citizens. For that reason, too, we will continue to make the case for the accession of Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey. I hope that December's European Council in Rome might agree a more precise framework for Bulgaria and Romania's remaining negotiations. I also hope that at the weekend, EU leaders will encourage Turkey to continue its progress towards fulfilling the Copenhagen criteria in time for the decisive December 2004 European Council.
Opponents of enlargement often point to the risks of dilution of the EU's founding ideals. They argue that in a union of 25 or more member states, agreement will be possible only on the least contentious issues, and the Union will lose direction and strategic coherence. I have always believed that the reverse is true. Only an enlarged
402
European Union, stretching to the geographical boundaries of the continent, can realistically hope to tackle the problems that do not respect borders. Nor do I think that an enlarged EU will succumb to an endless power struggle between so-called federal and nonfederal visions of Europe.
The draft that EU Heads of Government will receive at Thessaloniki provides a basis for a constitutional treaty that will be clear, help its institutions and member states manage the EU more effectively, and enable us to co-operate more closely in foreign policy and the fight against crime. That will be an effective Europe with strong institutions that attract the support of Europe's citizens, and a more democratic Europe, anchored in the legitimacy of the nation states. That is what we shall be working for at the European Council this weekend.
3.6 pm
Mr. Michael Ancram: Today's debate is more significant than the regular European tour d'horizons that we have in the House every six months— we can use foreign language on this side of the House, too. After the Foreign Secretary's speech today, we shall have to reach some agreement on the pronunciation of names, or we shall find ourselves talking about our trips to "Paree" and "Firenze" and meeting President Putin in "Moskva". I am sure that we do not want to get into that. I hope that the Foreign Secretary agrees that, where an English pronunciation of a place name is available, we should use it.
The summit in Thessalonica is no run-of-the-mill summit. It will receive, and begin the discussions on, the recommendations of the Giscard d'Estaing Convention.
I listened with growing amazement and disbelief to the Foreign Secretary. I cannot understand whom he is trying to kid. He is too intelligent to take seriously the false analysis of the outcome of the Convention that he keeps repeating. What he has sought to do once again is to create a false debate. The only reason that I can see for that is fear of the real debate. We have heard him claim once again that the outcome of the Convention does not amount to very much—not enough to get hot under the collar about, and certainly not enough to justify a referendum.
The Foreign Secretary knows that that is arrant nonsense. I make no accusation of dishonesty against him; in many ways, he personifies sincerity. We can all recall the sincerity with which he presented the dodgy dossier to the world in February, and he was praised by Secretary Colin Powell. Today we have seen him present, with equally wide-eyed sincerity, what I believe will become known as the dodgy debate.
The Convention set out to achieve a new status and direction for the EU, and it has achieved that. I cannot understand why the Government are so keen to deny that fact. It is not as if they believe, at the end of the day, that they can get away with it. For a start, their colleagues in Europe will not let them.
On 21 May, the Foreign Secretary told the House:
"No one should get obsessed about the fact that it will be called a constitution."—[0fficial Report, 21 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 1030.]
Not so, says former Italian Prime Minister and Convention member Lamberto Dini, who warned on 1 June:

403
"Anyone in Britain who claims the constitution will not change things is trying to sweeten the pill for those who don't want to see a bigger role for Europe. The constitution is not just an intellectual exercise. It will quickly change people's lives … Eventually the union will … become an institution and organisation in its own right."
That is one voice.
On 11 June, the Foreign Secretary told us:
"What the Convention is proposing … will not alter the fundamental constitutional balance between the European Union's institutions and the member nation states."—[Official Report, 11 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 712.]
However, on 28 May Danish Premier Anders Fogh Rasmussen stated:
"What is at stake is so new and big that it is right to hold a referendum".
And Inigo Mendez de Vigo, a Spanish Convention member, announced:
"This is the most important text since the Treaty of Rome in 1957."
While the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister strive to persuade us that the proposed constitutional change is nothing—that it alters no relationships and merely tidies up—German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer proudly proclaims:
"We have a draft constitution that is worthy of the word historic."
He continues, even more forcibly:
"It is the most important treaty since the formation of the European economic community."
Those are not the words of someone welcoming a tidying-up exercise or something that will not fundamentally change the relationship between ourselves and Europe. Why should we believe the Foreign Secretary when the weight of comment from Europe contradicts him? Are there rogue elements in Europe as well as in the security services seeking to undermine the Government?
I know whom the British people believe on this, and it is not the Government. To be fair to the Government, at least the Chancellor knows the score. The Treasury's single currency assessments, published last week, on page 220, state:
"Many of the issues being considered by the European Convention could have far reaching consequences for the future performance of EU economies whether they are part of the euro area or not."
That means us, and it does not sound like tidying up.
Why is the Foreign Secretary so reticent? The Prime Minister has frequently called for the building of a European superpower—and that is not my word, but the word that he uses. That is what the proposed constitution lying on the table in Thessalonica is, at the very least, proposing. The truth is that the draft constitution constitutes a step change away from the Europe of nations to a political entity in its own right.
Mr. Straw: I have listened with care to the right hon. Gentleman, whose speech has obviously been drafted by the Leader of the Opposition's speechwriter. He has given several quotations, but if he wants more
404
authoritative observations from people who are keen federalists, I offer him the following. Romano Prodi said that the text
"lacks vision and ambition. It is in some respects a step backwards"—
meaning a step backwards to the nation states.
Mr. Bercow: He is a federalist.
Mr. Straw: I know, but he is saying the Convention is a step backwards. That is exactly my point. He is indeed a federalist, but he sees it as a step backwards, not forwards. The even more extreme federalist, Giuliano Amato, who has been vice-president of the Convention, said—according to The Daily Telegraph on 24 May—when he saw the texts:
"I want to kill myself."
Mr. Ancram: I hesitate to suggest that he must have just heard a speech by the Foreign Secretary before making that remark. If we are to have an honest debate, we must consider the proposals as a whole. There is no point in producing, time after time, arguments suggesting that this enormous document, which calls itself a constitution, is not a constitution. The Foreign Secretary said that it did not have primacy, but the document itself, in paragraph I-10.1, states:
"The Constitution, and law adopted by the Union's Institutions in exercising competences conferred on it, shall have primacy over the law of the Member States."
That is precisely what I suggested and what the Foreign Secretary contradicted.
We must look at the proposals as a whole. The constitution creates constitutional primacy, a legal personality, a president, a foreign secretary, fundamental rights—including the right to strike—that will be legally enforceable at European level, a common foreign and security policy, plans for a European army, the explicit primacy of European law, an increasing role in criminal law, control over immigration and asylum, expanded powers in transport and energy, and a common currency. That is no tidying-up exercise. It is at worst a collecting of pieces to construct them into something new and at best the beginning of the fulfilment of the dream of those who have always seen the European Union as the route to a politically united Europe.
Mr. Jim Marshall: I have some sympathy with the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making, but he overstates his case when he represents an agenda presented by individuals, or even countries. He must understand that that is not how the constitutional power of the European Union has increased over the past 40 years. It happens when the Foreign Ministers and Heads of State start negotiating and horse-trading at the intergovernmental conferences. Some say, "We don't want this," and others say, "Well, we don't want that." In the end, they all give a bit. It is through that process of accretion that constitutional change takes place and the power of the European institutions increases.
Mr. Ancram: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Our experience is that the change happens with a ratchet effect, and power rarely passes the other way. What

405
concerns me—and it is why I said earlier that we have moved into a new phase—is that the construction of the constitution, which calls itself a constitution and has all the features of one, is now no longer in the hands of the Convention but in those of the IGC. That is where the bartering and the arguments will begin.
I am concerned that the Government have already decided the outcome, because they have said firmly that they will not allow a referendum, whatever comes out of the IGC.
Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that a ratchet effect is at work. I put it to him that there is a close and compelling analogy between the process of European integration and the process of seduction, and the consequence in both cases is the same.
Mr. Ancram: I need to give a little thought to the deeper meaning of those remarks before I venture a reply. However, we agree that we need to be aware of the dynamic of the situation. That is the reality that our partners in Europe understand, and I do not know why the Government do not have the honesty to admit it. Let us consider the totality of what is proposed. If that is not a fundamental change, I do not know what is. The saying goes that if you see an elephant on your doorstep, you should recognise that fact before you get trampled on. This constitution is an elephant and its capacity to trample on us is growing all the time.
Huw Irranca-Davies: The right hon. Gentleman displayed his prowess in the French language earlier, and I confess that I am not so competent in it. He will undoubtedly have been reading Le Monde, Le Figaro and other European journals, and they have praised the skills of the UK negotiating team, because it has won the best deal not only for Europe, but for Britain. If that had happened under a Conservative Government, the right hon. Gentleman would have been singing its praises to the highest heaven.
Mr. Ancram: Indeed, I join Le Monde in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) for the work that they have done in the Convention, but I would not take French newspapers as a judge of whether British interests had been best served. In fact, I would be concerned if they thought that I had been acting in the best interests of Britain. Knowing the way in which French newspapers operate, I would sup with them with a very long spoon.
Mr. Bryant rose—
Mr. Ancram: I always like to give way once to the hon. Gentleman, but I always know what question he will ask, and I shall give the same answer as I usually do.
Mr. Bryant: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but I am troubled that he admits that he always gives the same reply, whatever the question might be.
Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman always asks the same question.
Mr. Bryant: I have a specific question that relates to the point that the right hon. Gentleman made about the
406
primacy of the Convention constitution over the constitutions of Europe. Does he accept that that applies only in certain competences, such as the regulation of state aid and competition, for which it is essential that the EU has primacy? Indeed, it has had such primacy for a long time, as originally agreed by a Conservative Government.
Mr. Ancram: The Foreign Secretary, when he read out what was said this morning about constitutions, suggested that the Convention constitution would not have an effect over other constitutions. What the hon. Gentleman has just said disproves that. Words must mean something, and I shall read out the words in the constitution again. It states:
"The Constitution, and law adopted by the Union and institutions in exercising competencies conferred on it, shall have primacy over the law of the Member States."
The Foreign Secretary was denying that primacy, but it is written into the constitution.
Mr. Straw: How, in substance, does that differ from what has been in the treaties since the treaty of Rome and what is encapsulated in section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972?
Mr. Ancram: I am sorry to have to repeat myself, but we must look at the totality of what is being proposed.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ancram: Before I give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I must make it clear that he and I know, from our experience as lawyers, about circumstantial evidence. We have told juries to look at the evidence as a whole because it might not amount to anything if each bit is looked at separately. We know that putting all the evidence together reveals what it can achieve. That is when one sees the reality.
Mr. Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that the words used must be given a plain meaning. In his view, what is the plain meaning to be ascribed to the phrase
"in exercising competencies conferred upon it"?
Ancram: The plain meaning is that in those competencies, which are very wide, there is a primacy over the laws of the member states. That is absolutely clear.
Mr. Straw: I must press the right hon. Gentleman on that. Of course, he is right that the whole is often greater than the sum of the parts. We all know that, but I am making a specific point about the particular text that he has read out. What, in substance, does the new text produce by way of change, compared with the provision that has been in our law and in the treaties since section 2(2) of the 1972 Act came into force? That Act makes it equally clear that, in respect of legal instruments exercised at a Union level under EU competencies, Union law overrides the domestic law of Britain or any other member state. What is the difference?
Mr. Ancram: My argument—which I shall continue with—is that it is important to look at the totality. If it

407
is accepted that, where there are competencies, the constitution shall have primacy over the law of the member states, then we must look at what will happen with those competencies in the future. We must determine what the effect of that provision will be, and how much wider and broader those competencies will become. That is why we must look at the whole, as I said earlier, but I am prepared to look at some of the details.
I want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells, who published a compelling analysis of the proposed constitution two days ago. Most of us will be grateful to him for having clarified some of the issues that have been the subject of rather muddy debate in this Chamber on previous occasions. He identified some areas of concern that I want to explore.
The constitution endows the EU with a legal personality. For the first time, the EU becomes an autonomous entity in relation to the member states, with the ability to conclude international agreements by itself. We have a constitution that has primacy over the laws of member states.
Mr. Straw: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the EU has a legal personality at the moment? That is what has enabled it to agree all sorts of treaties internationally.
Mr. Ancram: It has done so in respect of trade, but—[Interruption.] This is where I think that the Foreign Secretary is trying to create a false debate. We are looking at what the constitution, if it ends up in the treaty, will confer on the EU, with a view to determining what its total effect will be. We are looking not at the small changes that it may make in some respects to the position as it was in the past, but at what the overall effect will be. I challenge the Foreign Secretary to say that the changes are not fundamental and significant in their totality. That is the argument that he seeks to make.
Malcolm Bruce: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ancram: I am going to make some progress, if I may.
I turn now to the new powers. The list of EU powers is to be expanded. Formerly, only the customs union was an explicitly EU power, but now there are four. Amazingly, the conservation of marine biological resources is one of them. Where is the rationale for that? Under the EU, the common fisheries policy has been a disaster. Our seas have been emptied of fish and many of our fishing communities have been sent to the wall. Surely we should be working to retrieve our fishing waters from the EU, rather than entrenching them within it?
I turn now to the new areas in which member states cannot legislate if the EU chooses to do so. These are the areas of shared competence—that is,
"where the Union has not exercised or ceases to exercise its competence in the area of shared competence, the Member States may exercise theirs."
408
If one turns that around to get away from the Euro-speak, that means that, where the EU has exercised its competence, the member states cannot. The shared competencies include justice and home affairs, transport, agriculture and fisheries, trans-European networks, energy, social policy, economic and social cohesion, the environment, and consumer protection. Those areas are now open-ended.
Ms Gisela Stuart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ancram: I will give way in a moment, but I want to deal with the co-ordination of economic and employment policies. Article II-3 states:
"the Union shall have competence to promote and coordinate the economic and employment policies of the Member States."
I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary—or perhaps even the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston—will be able to tell me what that means. As I understand it, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), when he was Minister for Europe, tried to have the clause about the co-ordination of economic and employment policies deleted. I wonder whether it is still a red line for the Government.
Ms Stuart: Given the right hon. Gentleman's concerns about shared competencies, which will be defined clearly in part 3 of the constitution, does he welcome article II-2, which for the first time provides that, when the EU ceases to exercise its competence in respect of shared competencies, those competencies can be exercised by the nation states?
Mr. Ancram: I welcome, as small crumbs from the table, any demonstration that there are movements back from the centre towards the nation states. However, I come back to the totality of what is being put forward. I hope that someone on the Government Front Bench will be able to answer my question about the coordination of economic and employment policies, as I believe that it is a key matter when it comes to looking at the totality of the proposals.
Mr. Eric Illsley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ancram: I shall make a little progress and then give way to the hon. Gentleman.
I turn now to the harmonisation of criminal justice rules and procedures by qualified majority voting. One of the most far-reaching extensions of power is in judicial co-operation in criminal matters. The proposals are all subject to QMV, and provide for EU laws on admissibility of evidence and the rights of individuals and victims in criminal cases, as well as for sanctions in cross-border crimes. I hardly think that that is tidying up.
There are also many areas where national vetoes will disappear. They range from asylum and immigration to culture. Henceforth, asylum and immigration will come under the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice. The House must realise that, quite simply, we will no longer be able to decide our own asylum and immigration

409
policy. That is what the provision means, and it is precisely what I fear in the totality of what is being produced.
Mr. Illsley: The right hon. Gentleman talks about the totality of the constitution. Will he give an example of where that totality alters the competencies already listed in previous treaties? Will he give an example of where there will be a new power?
Mr. Ancram: I am in the middle of giving some specific examples of where there has been an extension of competence by the EU, according to the details of the constitution. However, the totality of the proposals will change the nature of Europe, which will go from being a Europe of nations to a Europe that is a political entity.
Let us look at what might be called the icing on the cake—the question of the European president and the European foreign minister. Our Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, understandably, have their eyes on good retirement jobs. However, I must warn the Foreign Secretary that the German Foreign Minister has his eye on the European job, so the competition for the post might be great.
The proposals epitomise the draft constitution's centralising tendencies. Having a president who will be Mr. Europe for two and a half years or five years is very different in respect of what I understand by the term "intergovernmentalism" from having a rotating presidency, either singly or in teams, supplied by the member states. The constitution departs from that sort of intergovernmentalism. It creates an identifiable figurehead, and that is its whole purpose. In doing that, it underlines the nature of the changes that are being made.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who has been generous about giving way, but I must tell him that, if I thought that the result of the proposal would be a centralisation of power within what we normally call Brussels—that is, the Commission—I would be against it. However, the reverse is the case. At present, the presidency is rotated between the 15 member states, of which there will soon be 25. That means that the Council of Ministers, whether at Heads of Government level or, more particularly, at a functional level, has less influence and power than it should have in comparison with the Commission, which is permanent in terms of the civil service and, effectively, of Commissioners. The result has been an attempt to rebalance the Union in favour of the council of nations, namely the European Council.
Mr. Ancram: As I understand it, the president will not necessarily have to be a serving Head of Government.
Mr. Straw: Yes
Mr. Ancram: I am glad of that confirmation. The president will not, in that case, be part of the Council of Ministers, but a centralised figure at the top of the pile within the European Union. That is what I mean by saying that we should look at the totality of the proposals. There will be a foreign minister, and, as we read in the constitution, he will conduct the Union's common foreign and security policy. Those are not
410
words describing devolution down to the nation states; they are words of centralising up. That shows the nature of the changes being made.
Mr. Redwood: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the constitution says that those
"member states which sit on the Security Council shall request that the Minister for Foreign Affairs be asked to present the Union's position",
it means exactly what it says? That means effectively that we have lost our UN Security Council seat, because whenever he wants to, the minister for Europe will do that.
Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. To my mind, the constitution goes a stage further. The Union would take on itself the mantle of a sovereign state in that all the other members of the UN Security Council will be sovereign states.
Mr. Mark Hendrick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ancram: I want to make some progress.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Ancram: I shall, but it must be the last time, given the time.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend reject with contempt continual complaints that our powers are not being reduced? Will he consider page 4 of today's Evening Standard, on which a representative of the Foreign Office states that the Home Secretary's plans for transit camps for asylum seekers are being chucked out because the European Union will not allow them? Will my right hon. Friend make it abundantly clear that we have had non-stop interference with our right to decide things as a Parliament? Members of Parliament should be more concerned about the democratic rights of the people than about speaking nonsense and saying that Europe is not a problem. Our democracy has been undermined year after year, and Members of the House of Commons should be concerned about that.
Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a point at which I had hinted. The Government are voluntarily giving away control over asylum and immigration policy. I am delighted to hear that he reads English papers rather than the French papers mentioned earlier. His judgment on that is very sound.
Mr. Hendrick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ancram: May I make some progress?
Underpinning the whole constitution is the charter of fundamental rights. The Prime Minister said in October 2000:
"It has been agreed that [the charter] is a political direction which is not legally binding."
Now, it is to be legally binding. That is the move that has taken place.

411
On top of that, we now have the so-called escalator clauses, which allow areas currently subject to veto to be moved to qualified majority voting without any treaty change or reference to national parliaments. That is to be allowed in any area.
Mr. Straw indicated dissent.
Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but if he reads the constitution, he will find that that is so.
The truth is that the Government's assurances on red lines are worthless. Most of what any federalist wants, including QMV in foreign affairs, can be obtained without any need for a new treaty. Indeed, the whole thrust of the constitution is towards ever-deeper integration. For instance, article 17, the so-called flexibility clause, will, with no consultation of national parliaments, allow the EU a virtually unfettered remit to expand its powers. That is the reality, on which I ask only that the Government come clean.
The Government should also come clean on how much power the constitution transfers to the judges of the European Court of Justice. They will decide the impact of the charter of fundamental rights on European and national law. They will decide how the shared competencies will work. They will decide how far the EU will end up running our asylum and immigration policies. They will influence our criminal law. They will adjudicate on our energy supplies. Far from fulfilling the Laeken aspiration of bringing European Union institutions closer to EU citizens, the draft constitution succeeds only in taking power away from the people's elected representatives and giving it to distant and unelected judges.
Those are the elements of a fundamentally changed Europe. If the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are sincere about defending British interests and preserving a Europe of nations, they must set down markers in Thessalonica to say that those elements are unacceptable in any forthcoming treaty, starting with the constitution itself, which the Prime Minister told us in Warsaw only three years ago was not needed.
We want an effective, responsible and more flexible Europe that can genuinely meet the challenges of enlargement and of the 21st century. We want an EU that is accountable, democratic and connected to its people. We believe that that is best accomplished by working with the nation state, not by trying to supersede it. We need constructive reform that does more than enhance power structures at the top. We want a Europe that works for its people, not its elites. We want a Europe that takes real account of national variety and aspirations. We want a Europe that is genuinely accountable to the national parliaments from which its power springs. At the end, we want a Europe that must seek to work in partnership with the United States rather than in some fanciful rivalry to it.
That is the Europe that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary should pursue at Thessalonica rather than turning a blind eye to the real meaning of the draft constitution. If they are not prepared to face up to that reality and to start defending British interests—if they
412
are irrevocably set on marching down the road of the constitution towards the Prime Minister's aspiration for a superpower—they should at least have the courage of their convictions and seek the wholehearted consent of the British people.
In the week in which the Government have announced referendums on regional assemblies in the north, and in the week in which an enormous opinion poll has shown that the British people want to have their say, the Government should announce that they will trust the people.
We who sit across the Floor will, in debate after debate, almost certainly continue to disagree on what the draft constitution means. Why not ask the people? Promise a referendum, and let the people decide.

DEFER RED DIVISION
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): I have now to announce the result of the Division deferred from a previous day. On the motion on race relations, the Ayes were 260, the Noes were 16, so the motion was agreed to.
[The Division List is published at the end of today's debates.]
I must remind hon. Members that between 5 pm and 6.30 pm, Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
3.36 pm
Ms Gisela Stuart: I was one of the House of Commons representatives on the Convention, but I was also our national parliamentary representative on the Praesidium and, since that was the drafting committee, I must probably plead more guilty than most of the final outcome. The draft is a good basis for the Government to work on, and I was delighted to hear the Foreign Secretary say so. It is a basis, not a framework within which only the Convention determines what should be debated further.
The United Kingdom Government will have a difficult job in a number of areas. I want to pass on some observations on how the Convention worked.
Some 28 countries were represented, including Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey. When the Convention started, 10 member states did not know whether their accession treaties would be finalised. Yet those states were asked for an opinion and an input into the way in which EU institutions should be reformed, without their having had first-hand experience of them. The prevailing zeitgeist was that of a group of people who clearly had a federal vision of a United States of Europe, and who clearly thought that the Convention provided a great historic opportunity. I think that some of the quotes that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) used were from the last day, when people were covering their disappointment. For the committed federalists, the outcome was a deep disappointment. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) mentioned the ratcheting and the seduction effect. Giuliano Amato said, "We wanted a boy, but we ended up with a girl." That means that the committed federalists and integrationists are now the most disappointed group.

413
The majority of members had to face up to the contradiction between wishing for deeper integration, which they saw not as a political project but one that allowed for effective working, and retaining national identity. To the new member states it was immensely important that national identity and elements of sovereignty were retained. In some cases, that is an irreconcilable contradiction, but we tried to find a way forward. For an effective union with 25 members, qualified majority voting is needed more often. Frankly, in practice—this is where the debate about the need for a national veto is disingenuous as regards the public—the national veto has an extremely bruising effect. It is used only rarely. With qualified majority voting, everyone has to negotiate an outcome on which they can agree.
Mr. Redwood: Surely the veto is what guarantees that we will have a Europe of nations. The introduction of QMV in more areas implies continuous revolution with the passion to legislate more, grab more power and take more control. That is why we do not like it.
Ms Stuart: I shall return to that matter.
The constitution is a challenge for all political parties and for the United Kingdom. It is a challenge for the Conservatives, who really must move away from the Thatcherite "Nothing good has ever come from this" and from thinking that if something has the word "Europe" in it, it must be bad. That is not true. It is also a challenge for the Labour party, because we have become accustomed to beating the Conservatives over the head with Europe. We have gone to the other extreme and said that it is all good, instead of being a constructive critical friend who says that the overall project has benefited us and the whole of Europe, but that if we want that process to continue in the wake of enlargement, drastic reforms are needed in the way the Union works.
From my experience in the Convention, the constitution is also a huge challenge for the Liberals. Andrew Duff said that the Liberal caucus collectively signed up to every word in the constitution and hoped that he would one day be able to return proudly to a United Kingdom where his fellow countrymen and women had shed their outdated nationalism and become true Europeans. Just because one thinks that one's party will never be in government, one should not want an ever-bigger kitchen in which to stir the broth—but I leave that to the Liberals.
This matter is also a challenge for the United Kingdom. What I have found extraordinary about the past few months is that in the international sphere we see ourselves as a strong and significant country that has huge influence and, some would say, that still punches above its weight. However, when it comes to Europe, we behave like a small country. We have become extremely defensive, rather than acting as France and Germany do and simply being assertive—going in early in a combative way.
I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary say that he wants to be greatly involved in the debate. I hope that that will encourage hon. Members
414
on both sides of the House to engage much more constructively in the debate to make Europe work. That is the basic element.
Mr. Bercow: The hon. Lady was going to answer my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood).
Ms Stuart: I shall come back to that.
Three elements were important to me. One was accountability, and I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Devizes, who implied that power is conferred on the Union by national Parliaments; it is conferred by member states. The role of Parliaments—whether national Parliaments or the European Parliament—is to scrutinise the Executive. The scrutiny process will be strengthened, provided that Westminster lives up to the challenge. I am not yet convinced that hon. Members will use the extra powers conferred on them to challenge and scrutinise the Executive. I hope that they do, and that they will start to debate the Commission's annual programme in this Chamber so that they can no longer hide behind saying, "We knew nothing about this." The information is out there, and the new protocol will give the House the power to scrutinise and influence Ministers.
The openness requirement when the Government legislate will make clearer what Ministers have done on our behalf. By the way, that does not mean that I think that the new legislative council is a good idea; new institutions should be created only when there is a need for them.
Mr. Jim Marshall: I am listening closely and with great interest to what my hon. Friend is saying about scrutiny by this Parliament. She has appeared before the European Scrutiny Committee on more than one occasion and has been subjected to close questioning about her activities. She will be aware that that Committee is one of the most effective in Europe. One of the big problems is getting debates on the Floor of the House. What she should urge is that the Government take greater account of the recommendations of the European Scrutiny Committee so that issues such as those she mentions get prime time and prime publicity on the Floor of the House.
Ms Stuart: It is true that the United Kingdom's European Scrutiny Committee has been used as a model by a number of EU member countries looking at ways of taking the process forward.
On unanimity and qualified majority voting, some areas go to the heart of the nation state in terms of constitutional arrangements. On future treaty ratifications, for example, we need to be completely protected. I could not agree to a system under which a constitutional treaty would be amended by any process other than ratification by every member state. In virtually all other areas. however, what is important to me is whether we have the ability to change policy domestically and how we best achieve that. On asylum and immigration, therefore, it was right to move to QMV because unanimity has meant that we have been unable to force some of the other states in the Union to live up to their responsibilities.

415
On matters such as taxation and social security, however, I would insist on unanimity. The reason for that is best illustrated by one example: if I were asked what was the biggest achievement of the Labour Government who came into office in 1997, I would say that it was working tax credits. We changed the way in which benefits were delivered: no longer through benefit cheques but through the wage packet. The tools of taxation and social security are therefore vital for implementation of domestic policy. That is how I regard the trade-off between QMV and unanimity.
Let me give one example of how unanimity can be totally destructive. I talked to someone today who had spent 10 years of his life trying to secure an amendment to the El11 form, which covers people for medical treatment when they go to Europe, so that it would also cover pregnant women—the definition covered only illness, and pregnancy is not an illness. The attempt failed for 10 years because the Greeks insisted that a further line be added to say that pregnant women would be covered only if they did not travel on purpose. In circumstances where everybody wants an amendment but one country suddenly becomes unreasonable, the veto is not a virtue. That is why we need to consider the issues one by one. In areas of taxation and security, we need the veto, but in others it is not in our interests.
Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Lady is making a fundamental point. Is not one of the problems with those who have become so opposed to the European Union that they are effectively advocating withdrawal that they have lost sight completely of the added value that working together brings, whether in dealing with asylum seekers or with the environment? She is right to say that we must find out where the value is added, and where retaining our independence is added value. If one cannot approach the debate in that fashion, one cannot realistically take part in it.
Ms Stuart: Indeed. It could be argued that this area, rather than being one in which the Convention has failed or missed the trick, was not part of our mandate. We did not look at policy itself. Therefore, whatever the constitutional implications of the document that comes out at the end of the intergovernmental conference, if anyone were to ask how the life of a citizen has changed at this point, the answer would be that it had not done so at all, because all the policies are carrying on as they were. It could be argued that the exercise should have been approached as if one were a chief executive of EU plc, asking which areas of competency work well, which things we should not do, and where we need new institutions. We did not approach it in that way, however.
Mr. Bercow: I want to challenge the hon. Lady's premise that it does not really matter which Executive, domestic or European, implements policy, but merely that there should be a chance to scrutinise it. I put it to her that there is an essential difference, on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) touched in his intervention, which is that we should have the chance subsequently to change policy. There is a difference between this country choosing to
416
legislate on social, cultural, environmental or economic matters, with the chance of change, and European institutions having the opportunity to do so, thereby removing from British parliamentarians the opportunity to secure change at a later date. That is the difference.
Ms Stuart: The point that I was trying to make was that the job of parliamentarians is scrutiny of the Executive. The Westminster Parliament's job is to scrutinise our Government and the European Parliament's job is to scrutinise the Commission. We need to learn to work much more closely with our MEPs so that we take the strategic approach that best represents our country.
It is not true that we shall lose the ability to implement nationally; we need to be much more clever about ensuring that we do at European level what is best done collectively.
Mr. Hendrick: Does my hon. Friend find it curious that 10 nations are clamouring to join the EU and have recently held referendums on that, yet the Opposition are doing their best to make out that the EU is a waste of time? They have gone as far as they could without saying that we should withdraw, even though we know that that is their real agenda.
Ms Stuart: Yes.
Michael Fabricant: That was a difficult one.
Ms Stuart: It was a valid intervention. It is curious that part of this country seems to have forgotten that EU membership has been in our collective interest and has served us well for the past 30 years. We should have a constructive and open debate about how we can continue to make it work with a Union of 25.
Mr. Ancram: I have been listening carefully to what the hon. Lady has been saying about the role of parliamentarians. On two occasions, she said that the job of Parliament is to scrutinise the Executive, but is it not also to authorise the Executive? The Executive take their power from the parliamentarians who are elected by the people. It is thus not quite right for her to criticise me for saying that power flows from national Parliaments. I repeat that they must be the fount of power, because their sovereignty stems from the people.
Ms Stuart: The right hon. Gentleman is right. However, the distinctions that I have been trying to draw for the past 15 months relate to how the sovereignty and authority that come from the nation state, through its rightfully elected Government—from Westminster in our case—are represented in the Council of Ministers. I do not want to turn national Parliaments into European institutions; that is not Westminster's job. National parliamentarians are at one remove from Europe. I was delighted to hear the Foreign Secretary say that he wanted to strengthen the early warning mechanism. It has already been strengthened in one way by giving a right of referral to the courts, but I should prefer there to be a red card saying "No".
The challenge is to Parliaments. An interparliamentary body—COSAC—already exists, almost unknown except by the small group of people

417
who attend it. Over the 10 past years, COSAC has been unable to arrive at a common view. That is why the Convention document poses a huge challenge to national Parliaments.
I want to make a few comments about where I would draw the line, because that is how I shall judge the outcome of the IGC and whether the integrity of member states will be protected so as to ensure that the EU is not more than a union of states. I am not hung up about whether things are described as having a Community basis. Having spent the first 18 years of my life in a federal state, I realise that sometimes "federal" can mean decentralised.
In key institutional elements, the minority must not be overruled by the majority, so treaty ratification must be carried out by all member states. Similarly, the voluntary withdrawal clause in the document is a statement of the fact that a member may withdraw. If a constitution sets out that one can join a body, there must, logically, be provision for withdrawal. That is where we should focus our minds.
Opposition Members keep saying that we are going down a one-way street or that we are in a prison from which we cannot escape. I challenge them to make their case and to spell out the practical consequences of their view. They should not merely engage in scaremongering, but should really think things through. At some stage, I should like them to make the case that it would be in the United Kingdom's interest—
Sir Teddy Taylor: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but, under article 57, there is no right for member states simply to withdraw if they want to. It is all spelt out on page 44, which says that they can discuss proposals with the Commission, but the proposals must be approved by a majority of the Council, then by the European Parliament. So the idea that that measure gives anyone the right to walk out of the European Union is. sadly, not true. It would be much better to have a voluntary organisation from which people could withdraw. Article 57 does not provide that right at all.
Ms Stuart: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it does. It must be recognised that there is a Union interest if a member were to withdraw. Let us think through the political consequences if France, for example, decided to withdraw. There is a proper process. There is a time limit by which the European Council would have to take note of such a decision, but the political reality is that, for the first time, we have created a proper legal basis for that process. By the way, withdrawal was also possible before then; one country has withdrawn.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Greenland.
Ms Stuart: That was done under the Vienna convention, and it is much more proper, in my view, for the constitution to spell out a political process.
On the efficiency of the Union, the document proposes a smaller, much more effective Commission, and I had hoped that even Opposition Members would welcome that. I wish that the European Parliament would ask for the right to censor individual commissioners, as that would be the proper way to hold them to account. It gives a clearer delineation of responsibilities and a clearer way to take decisions.
418
I do not for the life of me understand why the Opposition oppose the President of the European Council. There is something ambiguous about the language—I would have preferred to use the phrase "Chair of the European Council"—but if ever a new institutional structure strengthened the representation of the member states it is that very function. The Commission is elected for five years and has a permanent composition. The European Council is elected for five years and has a permanent composition.
The third part of the institutional triangle, which has to have equal sides, will be the 25 representatives, and they will have general elections, so the membership will change. However, the presidency changes every six months and, from my experience of three presidencies and chairing the group of national parliamentarians, I do not think that the rotating presidency is a terribly good idea. Even in those 15 months, we experienced three different lots of people in the chair. So the proposed process will be hugely strengthening.
Denzil Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that the rotating presidency merely demonstrated that the Council of Ministers was not a central institution of the EU, like the Parliament, the European Courts and the Commission? That is why there was a rotating presidency. If we move away from that, we shall turn the Council of Ministers from an institution that represented member states into a kind of semi-centralised institution of the EU. That is the difference.
Ms Stuart: Yes, but that ultimately strengthens the voice of the nation states. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, it does not."] Well, time will tell who is right. From all that I have seen, the proposal represents a strengthening of the member states, and I am encouraged by the fact that the federalists opposed it most vigorously.
Mr. Ian Davidson: Does my hon. Friend accept that the very term, "president", which is in popular usage, implies considerable powers, position, an institution, an establishment and all the rest of it, and that that has great dangers? Would it not be better to consider the traditional Scottish term, "convenor", as it would more accurately convey the concept of convening meetings, rather than ruling?
Ms Stuart: Language is a problem. When we first started to discuss the term "president", a Dutch colleague came up to me and said, "When you talk about a president, do you mean the French kind or the German kind?" In French, there is only one word and no distinction can be made between a president and a chairman, so I would have preferred the term, "Chair" to be used. I have no idea how the term "convenor" would translate into the 20-odd languages—hence the job description.
I wish to consider briefly the job that the Government have on their hands as they go into the intergovernmental conference. I am glad that the Foreign Secretary has not heeded the suggestion, made by the president of the Convention, that the Convention itself should identify the areas that are as yet unclear or undecided. The Government say that there is a working basis.

419
We should not make compromises that will not produce a more efficient Union. I hope that the British Government will vigorously say no to several measures. I hope that article I-24.4—the passerelle clause that was mentioned—which would allow qualified majority voting to be introduced via the European Council, will be removed and that the measure on the legislative council will be removed. I also hope that the text will be improved.
My final point relates to the completely incomprehensible call for a referendum at this stage. Calls for a referendum started even before the ink on the first draft was dry. If this were a football match, we would be moving into injury time, because if the Heads of Government reach agreement on Friday, the Convention will return to complete the draft. The draft will then go to the intergovernmental conference. If the Opposition intend to continue on their course, will the right hon. Member for Devizes clarify a point? Whenever there are calls for a referendum, we owe it to the people whom we ask to cast their votes to spell out the clear consequences of their answer. I presume that a yes vote would indicate approval, but would a no vote mean that Opposition Members would suggest that we withdraw from the Union?
Mr. Ancram: May I clear that up by citing no better person than Valery Giscard d'Estaing—the person who has presided over the Convention? He was asked on "Breakfast with Frost" what would happen if a member country failed to ratify the treaty, which would happen if there were a negative vote in a referendum, and he replied that there would be no treaty.
Ms Stuart: Do I take it that the new Conservative party policy is that future European Union treaties such as Maastricht and Amsterdam should always be put to a referendum? Has the party's policy changed?
Mr. Bercow: My answer to that question would be yes. I think that people value a bit of candour and straightforwardness on such matters, so I put it to the hon. Lady that the argument sometimes made—albeit not by her on this occasion—that we have no case because there was a not a referendum on the Maastricht treaty is not compelling. There should have been a referendum on Maastricht—I was not in the House to do anything about that—there should have been a referendum on the Amsterdam treaty and there should be a referendum on this treaty. Two wrongs do not make a right. Let us get it right this time.
Ms Stuart: I am glad that we have had an indication of what the future leader of the Conservative party thinks about treaty ratification.
We have a good document, although it is not perfect. There are aspects to which the British object and aspects to which several other countries object. Many countries have hidden behind British objections for the past 15 or 20 years because it was convenient to do so. The French will find something in the document to criticise, as will the Spanish, the Danes and the Scandinavians. The document will be improved over the next six months
420
through the IGC. I look forward to the worthy document being improved even further by the Government's work.
4.3 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: No one can complain about a lack of attention to European affairs in our Parliament during past weeks. We have debated such issues almost weekly. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary promised an even more sophisticated system of consultation when he opened the debate, which the whole House should warmly welcome. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) mentioned candour, and it is only right for such matters to be the subject of extensive discussion. Some might say that we need even more canvassing of the issues because a recent opinion poll showed that 7 per cent. of the British people think that the United States is a member of the European Union. Perhaps there is a lot to do.
When dealing with treaties, it is important not to read and extract only parts of them for the purpose of an argument. I think that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram)—he has apologised for not being in the Chamber as he has another pressing obligation—was guilty of doing that to an extent.
If we are concerned about the nature of the treaty, surely it is right to look at the definition and objectives of the Union set out in paragraph 1 of article I-1. In that, we read:
"Reflecting the will of the citizens and States of Europe to build a common future, this Constitution establishes the European Union, on which the Member States confer competences to attain objectives they have in common."
Again, at paragraph 5 of article I-3, at the end of a list of objectives, we read:
"These objectives shall be pursued by appropriate means, depending on the extent to which the relevant competences are attributed to the Union in this Constitution."
So the principle is made clear at the outset of the document that the Union's capacity to operate depends on the extent to which individual member states are willing to confer power on it. It is important to have that in mind.
Mr. Redwood: Absolute rubbish.
Mr. Campbell: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has read the treaty from end to end.
On Union competences, article I-9 on fundamental principles states:
"The limits of Union competences are governed by the principle of conferral. The use of Union competences is governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality … Under the principle of conferral, the Union shall act within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Member States in the Constitution to attain the objectives set out in the Constitution. Competences not conferred upon the Union in the Constitution remain with the Member States."
The scheme that the constitution sets out and embraces is clearly set out in the document itself. In my respective judgment, it is a long way different from the description attributed to it by the right hon. Member for Devizes.
Mr. Redwood: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is speaking complete rubbish. If he reads article I-12 on

421
exclusive competence and article I-13 on areas of shared competence, he will see that they set out practically everything that Governments do. They cover monetary policy, commercial policy, customs union, marine biological resources, the internal market, freedom, security and justice, agriculture and fisheries, transport and trans-European networks, energy, social policy, economic and social cohesion, environment, consumer protection, common safety and, of course, common foreign and defence policy. It is a complete Government. They have got the lot.
Mr. Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman has fallen into the trap that I tried to exhort and encourage people to avoid. He can only read that part of the constitution against the terms of those parts that I outlined. They make it clear that the scheme is one in which individual member states confer competences. The extent to which those are exercised, no matter what the list may say, depends on the extent to which the states have given those responsibilities to the Union. If the right hon. Gentleman does not think that that is the case, the European Court of Justice should be his first stop if the constitution is applied. I make him a modest wager that if he were to endeavour to prevent the exercise of a competence that had not been conferred from the list that he read out, he would be on something pretty close to a banker in making an application to the Court.
It is also important to read all the contents of the provision in relation to qualified majority, to which the right hon. Member for Devizes referred. Qualified majority is mentioned in article I-24. He said that the question of qualified majority is beyond the power of individual nation states in some respects. However, he forbore to read paragraph 4 of that article, which says:
"Where the Constitution provides … for laws and framework laws to be adopted by the Council according to a special legislative procedure, the European Council can adopt, on its own initiative and by unanimity, after a period of consideration of six months, a decision allowing for the adoption of such laws or framework laws according to the ordinary legislative procedure."
It is impossible to move to majority voting unless there is unanimous agreement for that proposal. That is a lock on the sort of progress that the right hon. Gentleman found so offensive.
It is inevitable in advance of this Council that the issue of the Convention should form such a substantial part of our pre-Council debate. I have, by good fortune, spent a day this week in Berlin and a day in Paris, meeting officials and politicians. If I may report back, I can tell the House that there is mild and rather polite surprise at the febrile nature of the debate in the United Kingdom. One comes away from both those capitals with the sense that people there wonder what all the fuss is about. They are concerned that the debate in which we are taking part is so different from the one that is of consequence for them.
The referendum was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Devizes and by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart). Like others, I pay tribute to her and those who participated on behalf of both Houses of Parliament in the Convention procedure. I have no doubt that it was long and arduous, and that they all conducted themselves with great distinction, even though one does not necessarily agree with all their views or with all the views advanced by Mr. Andrew Duff.
422
I may be repeating some of the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), who spoke last week, but let me begin on the subject of a referendum by saying that the Liberal Democrats under the leadership of Mr. Ashdown, as he then was, were the first to call for a referendum on the issue of the single currency. They did so because that is not just an economic decision, but a political and constitutional decision as well.
There was an exchange a moment or two ago about the need for a referendum on the Maastricht treaty. There was an opportunity for such a referendum. On 21 April 1993 Mr. Bryan Gould, then a Labour Member of Parliament, introduced new clause 49, in which he sought to amend the commencement provisions of the relevant Act of Parliament to allow for a referendum on the treaty. The vote in favour was 124 and the vote against was 363. I can tell the hon. Member for Buckingham, who raised the issue, that I and most of my colleagues were in the Lobby asking for a referendum. One or two notable Conservative rebels, some of whom have risen to extremely high positions in the Conservative party, joined us, but for the most part, the Conservative party voted against.
On 13 February 1995—
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell: May I finish the point?
On 13 February 1995 there was a Liberal Democrat Opposition day on the motion
"That this House believes that the popular assent of the people of the United Kingdom should be sought through a referendum before any substantial alteration of the present constitutional settlement between the European Union and its member states."
I fancy that if the hon. Member for Buckingham had been in the House on that occasion, he would have voted with us. If he had, he would have voted on the winning side. The motion was carried by 43 votes to three. The Minister who was winding up for the then Conservative Government said to the House as he came to the end of his speech at column763:
"For the reasons I have set out, we do not consider that it is worth voting on the motion. It has been brought forward for short-term party political gain, and I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to abstain."—[Official Report, 13 February 1995; Vol. 254, c. 763.]
I suppose that demonstrates that if one is in this place long enough, one sees everything.
Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way, but his historical musings do not greatly advance matters. I was surprised by his reference to subsidiarity and proportionality, in respect of which the Convention offers very little by way of improvement. Is he not aware that the relevant protocol of the treaty of Amsterdam specifically states:
"The application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality shall respect the general provisions and the objectives of the Treaty, particularly as regards the maintaining in full of the acquis communautaire and the institutional balance; it shall not affect the principles developed by the Court of Justice regarding the relationship between national and Community law, and it should take into account Article F (4) of the Treaty on

423
European Union, according to which 'the Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies'."?
No improvement on that. Game, set and match.
Mr. Campbell: No doubt the hon. Gentleman can recite the speech of Laurence Olivier in "Richard II" too. If his argument is that there has been insufficient application of the principle of subsidiarity—Mr. John Major never received proper credit for the issue, which he adopted and pressed very hard—I say yes to that. I shall happily sign up with him and others who want to ensure that subsidiarity is much better pressed in the activities of the European Union. All that I wished to say by referring to the treaty is that subsidiarity is expressly set out. Perhaps he and I can agree later on the best methods of ensuring that that principle is applied.
The important point—to some extent, this reflects what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston said a moment ago—is that the Convention has not quite completed its work. The forthcoming IGC has not yet started, and I think that there are some very optimistic prognoses as to how long it may take. I suspect that it may take rather longer than expected. With regard to 1 May, the date of accession for the new countries, I suspect that there may have to be a postponement. That would be extremely unfortunate. The issues, some of which have already been canvassed, have not yet been fully resolved.
In the course of the IGC, the United Kingdom will have a veto. The House will also have a veto. When what the Government agree to comes back here, the House will have the opportunity for line-by-line scrutiny, as an issue of such importance will undoubtedly have to be dealt with on the Floor of the House. It will be subject to the veto not only of the United Kingdom, but of all the new members. It is wrong to assume the acquiescence of all the new members to the proposals. As has been said, some of them. having broken out of the hegemony of the Soviet Union and enjoyed freedom for 10 or 12 years, will be very reluctant to accede or give their imprimatur to anything that they understand to have the effect of being an unnecessary limit on that freedom.
Denzil Davies: The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to line-by-line scrutiny. That sounds wonderful, but in respect of most previous treaties, we have considered only Bills setting.out areas where they change domestic law. We are not allowed to debate such treaties line by line.
Mr. Campbell: I have participated in some of those debates along with the right hon. Gentleman, and I have never seen any inhibition preventing him and others, such as the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor), from raising issues that they thought relevant. He is correct to say that we scrutinise the Bill that is before the House, but as I understand it, that has never operated as a restriction on those who wish to raise other matters.
Mr. Illsley: The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about countries escaping from the hegemony of
424
the Warsaw pact and the Soviet Union. When members of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs visited the applicant countries, that was always put to them as a major issue. Obviously, they do not want to leave that behind to enter another constrictive structure.
Mr. Campbell: I am grateful for that corroboration.
Mr. Hopkins: I wondered whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman might want to welcome the attitude of the sinners who repenteth in the Conservative party in relation to referendums.
Mr. Campbell: One should always welcome repenting sinners, particularly if they want to adopt one's own Gospel.
If the constitution amounts to a codification of existing treaties, contains administrative changes to accommodate the increased membership of the European Union, is coupled with a greater definition of existing powers under treaties that have already been signed, is more definitive of the respective roles of the institutions of the Union and the individual member states and embraces the principle of subsidiarity, I would have thought that it should frighten no one. However, if the proposals that the Government eventually place before the House contain any major shifts of control and any transfer of significant new powers from member states to European institutions or alteration of the existing balance between the member states and those institutions—the test was clearly set out last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale—the Government would have an obligation to consider the constitutional implications for the United Kingdom and, in my judgment, to put those matters before the people of the United Kingdom in a referendum. If this is truly "tidying up", the tests that I have set out will not be met. We shall have to make a judgment when the process has been completed and not before, and those who judge wrongly may well have an electoral price to pay.
I think it is equally wrong to rule out a referendum in all circumstances and to insist on a referendum before the final form of the proposals is known. Although the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is not present, I repeat my support for the view that he has expressed on many occasions—unsuccessfully so far—that it is time the Government published a White Paper setting out their proposals for Britain's role in the European Union. The Convention, and the procedures that will follow, provide a sound basis for such a White Paper. If we are indeed to have a wide-ranging debate in which those in all parts of the House, and the public, will be properly involved, where better to start than with a clear and unambiguous statement by the Government of the policies that they wish to pursue?
I for one remain firmly wedded to the view that foreign and defence policy should remain intergovernmental. I think that ultimate responsibility for both should rest with national Governments and Parliaments. On 18 March, the House won for itself something of a right to endorse military. action. Some might argue that that was a special case—a one-off—but it strikes me as inconceivable that, in the event of a major deployment of British forces abroad in the future, we would not have a similar debate on a similar motion.

425
Now that we have won that right against the exercise of the royal prerogative, I for one am very reluctant to give it up. I have always believed that such decisions should rest with Parliament rather than with the Prime Minister. That, I think, is yet another argument to buttress the view that foreign and defence policy should remain the responsibility of Governments and Parliaments.
The same applies to taxation. I am not one of those who get too exercised about the role of the Lord Chancellor and the sweeping away of 1,400 years of history, but taxation and representation lie at the centre of our reason for being here. The battle between Parliament and the monarch was about those twin issues. For my part, I do not think that the House should give up that responsibility either.
The common agricultural policy is a continuing source of frustration for both friends and foes of the European Union. I think that it is enough to state the figures. Half the European Union's budget—€43 billion, or £30 billion—is devoted to the CAP. It has enormous consequences for the third world, and may have significant consequences for our position at the World Trade Organisation talks that will take place in Cancun in September.
Some of the accession countries will be licking their lips at the prospect of access to the CAP, but the real risk is that the bank may be bust. The efforts that are currently being made therefore strike me as extremely significant. I hope that the Government will use all their political influence and power to persuade countries such as France and Germany that CAP reform is fundamental to the European Union's financial position, that it has important implications for our world trade position, and that we have a moral obligation owing to the CAP's continuing consequences for the third world.
Mr. MacShane: I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Could he have a word with his fellow Liberals in parties around Europe to get them to support that policy?
Mr. Campbell: Most certainly. I am afraid that such issues are decided on a national, rather than a party political basis, but that does not make them any less urgent. If the Minister wants to sign me up, among others, to go to make that case to parties elsewhere in Europe, I shall be happy to do so, for the reasons that I indicated.
Another point is worth making in relation to the CAP. At the moment. as the German Government are the largest net contributor to the European Union, Germany is essentially the paymaster for the CAP. Those arrangements have to be reviewed in 2007. If I may say so, the German economy will have to be in a somewhat healthier condition than it is now if it is to be able to continue that kind of financial commitment to the CAP, but I rather fancy that it will not be. That may provide a break in the argument that will allow for reform.
I said previously that I was of the view that foreign and security policy must remain intergovernmental. However, that does not undermine the desirability of seeking common positions. In my judgment, the
426
amalgamation of the jobs that are being carried out by Javier Solana and Chris Patten makes considerable sense. The person who occupies that role should be answerable to the Council. However, there are questions of funding that I hope can be resolved to ensure that the individual, whoever he or she may be, will not find himself or herself being restricted in their activities by virtue of the fact that financial control and responsibility lie elsewhere. Although it makes sense for Javier Solana to produce a strategic doctrine, we should bear in mind that, as the Foreign Secretary hinted, if Europe is serious about its own security there will have to be some serious thinking about levels of defence spending. Some countries' contributions are, if not negligible, at least very insignificant by comparison with some of the political aspirations that they are willing to articulate.
In the course of the past couple of days, a common position has been adopted on weapons of mass destruction, and there will be a real opportunity to see the extent to which that is effective when we deal with the issue of Iran. The Foreign Secretary mentioned Iraq, but not the Iranian problem. Perhaps the Minister will be able to clarify the extent to which those issues are currently under consideration. I am in no doubt that a new security bargain has to be struck between the United States and Europe—one that is more of a partnership than a competition. The European Union may have a significant role to play in the forging of that bargain.
I understand that Mr. Putin is to visit. I hope that the Prime Minister will take the opportunity to say that the relationship between Russia and the European Union will to a large extent depend upon Russia's attitude towards Chechnya. The Prime Minister confirmed during Question Time that he would raise that issue directly. There will be relief and gratitude throughout the whole House that that is now the position, although it may have been slightly different in Westminster Hall earlier today.
On the single currency, I imagine that both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are likely to be asked about that by other EU members. I am one of those who believe unashamedly that it would be in Britain's interest to join. I thought that the Chancellor was at his most persuasive and eloquent when he argued the principle of the single currency from the Dispatch Box some 10 days ago. However, it is important not only to embrace the principle, but to work towards achieving the convergence that the five tests set out. If the Government still take the view that they wish the United Kingdom to be truly at the heart of Europe, they should recognise that we will truly be at the heart of Europe and truly able to exercise political influence only when we have joined the single currency. We will then find at Councils such as the one that is due to take place in the next couple of days that we are rather more influential than we appear to be at present.
4.29 pm
Mr. Jim Marshall: I have given you a commitment, Madam Deputy Speaker, to try to abide by the 10-minute rule that applies between 5 pm and 6.30 pm. I understand that, after me, you intend to call someone who has been a member of the Convention and may wish to take longer than 10 minutes. I accept a self-imposed restriction.

427
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) mentioned his discussions with politicians in Berlin and Paris and said that they found it difficult to understand the argument in the United Kingdom. With the greatest humility and respect, that is hardly surprising because their long-term agenda is totally different from that of the UK Government. The German and French Governments unashamedly pursue a federalist agenda, whereas the UK Government tell us that they have succeeded in the past few weeks in eliminating all references to "federal" from the Convention's articles. The lack of understanding is inevitable because those countries do not share the UK's aspirations.
However, I echo the righ: hon. and learned Gentleman's point about defence and security and taxation. Those matters should be ring-fenced, remain intergovernmental and out of the European Commission's clutches. I should love to continue the political banter, but perhaps I should get down to the subject under consideration.
The Convention may nearly have finished its work and I believe that most of us could agree with 90 per cent. of its proposals, but disagreement will continue on the remaining 10 per cent. Those disagreements will resurface with a vengeance in the IGC round that starts later in the year.
Although the Opposition do not accept it, the Government may be correct in their assertion that the Convention's proposals do not involve a further major constitutional shift in power from national Parliaments to the European Union. However, from my experience, the evidence of the past 40 years points to an inexorable drift in power to EU institutions. In the medium term, I suspect that the same is likely to occur with the Convention proposals.
I accept the Foreign Secretary's comments that the UK will oppose attempts gradually to eradicate national vetoes and make qualified majority voting the norm for EU policy making; the introduction of majority voting on taxation matters; moves to create a mutual European defence policy that could undermine NATO, and attempts to harmonise criminal law. I also accept that the UK Government will seek firm guarantees that the charter of fundamental rights will not override national law and create new rights.
I sincerely hope that the Government succeed in achieving those objectives. However, we all know—I am sure that that applies to the Minister, with his involvement in negotiations around Europe in the past few months—that, in the negotiations and horse-trading at the IGC, the Government may have to concede some of their aims to obtain concessions on other matters. I am not therefore as sanguine as the Foreign Secretary appears to be about the Government's long-term ability to achieve their objective.
I should like to be a little more welcoming of at least two of the proposals. I welcome the proposal that the Council must in future sit in public when legislating. This should at least ensure that the situation will no longer arise in which a Minister comes out of the Council saying that he has voted in a particular way
428
when we all know that he has voted in a completely different way, contrary to his own country's public position. The Council's sitting in public when legislating should remove the possibility of that happening.
I also welcome the proposal to invoke national Parliaments in the EU decision-making process at the very earliest stage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) said, the Commission will have to send each national Parliament every one of its proposals, explaining the reasons for Europe-wide action and what the likely implications will be. Parliaments will have six weeks to examine the texts, and, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, if one third of the Parliaments oppose a proposal, the matter will have to be reviewed, or given the so-called yellow card. I only hope that we can succeed in establishing the possibility of turning the yellow card into a red one, because it is only through the ability to issue a red card that we can really begin to hold the Commission to account. Parliaments throughout the 25 member states will, however, have to ensure that their security procedures are adequate to make the new system work properly. We all have a vested interest in ensuring that all the national Parliaments are able to cope with that new proposal.
On security and defence, I would like to underline everything that was said by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife. The United Kingdom must continue to support the intergovernmental structure of the common foreign and security policy. I have been a delegate from the House to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Western European Union for the past 10 years, and I have witnessed the increasing pressure for defence Europe from many continental politicians. I accept that the European Union should be able to undertake the so-called Petersberg tasks when NATO does not wish to be involved, but the European security objectives must be complementary to, not in competition with, those of NATO. The primary security architecture of Europe must remain NATO, and we must resist moves to make the European Union a rival military power to the United States. I believe that we shall be assisted in that objective by the expansion of the European Union in 2004, and I understand that the Foreign Secretary believes that as well.
I agree with what the Foreign Secretary said about Turkey, which has been a staunch ally of ours in NATO over the past 50 years. During the past 18 months, it has introduced a raft of new legislation to protect human rights there. Now is the time for Turkey to be given a firm guarantee that it will be admitted to the European Union. That would be good for Turkey, and for the reputation of the European Union in the Islamic world, which would then see that the European Union was not just a Christian club.
4.39 pm
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall). I agreed with much of what he said, and especially his closing comments on Turkey, which I think has earned its right to be a European country. It is a beacon in the Muslim world, showing that there can be a secular Muslim state.

429
My time on the Convention is drawing to an end, and I would like to thank the House authorities and the Clerks for the help that they have given the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and me over the past 15 months in our work in Brussels.
The Convention was not given a specific brief to draw up a constitution for Europe, although that was mentioned as a possibility. It was given the primary task of creating a more democratic, simpler Europe, closer to its citizens, and I judge the draft constitution on whether it does that. In my opinion it has failed, and that is why I did not sign it and instead, along with a few other colleagues on the Convention, submitted a minority report, which we believe more truly discharges that obligation. The constitution will now go to an intergovernmental conference, and we all accept that it can and will be further amended. However, I attended a previous IGC for an earlier enlargement, and it is striking how the parameters are set fairly early. One may win a tactical victory, but the strategic movement is already set in another direction.
The outcome of the Convention is not simply a starting point. It has produced a draft that will undoubtedly form the central part of what is before the IGC, and I would be very surprised if the eventual outcome differs markedly in its structure and architecture from the original—unless, of course, the Government are planning a much bigger revolt than has been suggested today. It could be that they will insist on their previous positions being respected. We were always told that they intended to fight to retain the intergovernmental pillars set up at Maastricht and guarded by all Governments since then.
The Prime Minister also promised that the EU charter of fundamental rights would not be legally binding, but now it is, as it forms the second part of the constitution and is therefore fully legally binding under the European Court of Justice. The various assurances and conditions surrounding it are wholly inadequate to prevent its having a profound and continuing effect on our own legal system. The Government are paying a price for having been far too conciliatory during the whole of the first year of the Convention. Most of what they do not want is already in the draft constitution, and it will now be difficult ever to get it out.
The Foreign Secretary gave us some examples of his red lines. There have been some very late additions, including the so-called passerelle clause, or bridging clause, which will allow the European Council, by unanimity, to move everything that remains from veto to majority voting. That is wholly unacceptable—certainly to this House—because it would allow the constitution to be amended from within, without any reference to national Parliaments or people. That was mentioned by the hon. Member for Leicester, South. I was rather surprised that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) approved of it, because if he is a champion, as he should be, of the rights of member states to amend the constitution in future, he should not allow it all to be done in-house by the European Council, without any further reference back to the Parliaments that sent their representatives there.
It is beyond doubt that the foolish remarks of the new Leader of the House should now be quietly dropped. It is absurd to call this whole exercise, which we have been
430
involved in for the past 15 months, simply an exercise in tidying up the treaties. That was always a preposterous claim—and frankly, a dishonest one. I was pleased, therefore, that the Foreign Secretary did not mention it. I think that he is now moving to a slightly different position, which concedes that these issues are extremely important—indeed, I believe them to be of giant constitutional significance. However, he is still saying that nevertheless, we can all leave it to the Government—but I am not prepared to do that. When constitutional changes are to be made, they must be decided by a referendum of the people.
All the existing treaties will be completely repealed, which has never happened before. The constitution—and we note that this is not being contested by the Government or any other member state—will found a new Union with a unified structure, without the intergovernmental pillars. It will have its own legal personality, which goes way beyond the existing treaties. The European community has a legal personality already, but the Union does not. Criminal justice, policing, foreign policy, security and defence—all that is now to be rolled into a single legal structure with its own legal personality.
The powers given to the new Union go way beyond anything written in existing treaties. For example, the Union will have the exclusive right—or "competence" as it is called in Euro-speak—to sign international agreements on behalf of member states. That includes not just international matters, but anything at all that affects domestic policy. That is made perfectly clear in article I-12. One will look in vain in existing treaties to find anything as extensive and far-reaching as that, and those international agreements will be made, of course, by qualified majority voting.
We have already had some debate about shared competences. Incidentally, words such as "shared competence" do not make documents any more user-friendly for the people who have to read them. Nor has the instruction to simplify really been discharged. The draft treaty before us runs to 224 pages. Yet in an article in The Economist last year, the Foreign Secretary said that he would insist that the final constitution could be fitted into his pocket. Good luck to him in the IGC, but he is leaving it awfully late. Certainly the current draft is bafflingly complex, even to the specialist reader.
I shall return to the issue of shared powers or competences. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said, virtually everything is brought within the new Union. The list of shared competences cover just about everything that the House deals with when it legislates. Another new dimension is the fact that if the Union decides to legislate in a particular area, the member states are forbidden to do so. That seems a funny definition of "sharing" to me.
The economy is another important issue. The Foreign Secretary did not deal with the matter; perhaps he has given in. In any case, the Union is to be given a pretty awesome new power. Under article I-14:
"The Union shall adopt measures to ensure coordination of the economic policies of the Member States".
That is not a power, but an injunction or an instruction about what measures "shall" be taken to "ensure" coordination. Very late in the Convention's life. employment measures were added, so we are talking

431
about compulsory co-ordination of economic and employment policies right across the Union. It is difficult to understand how that means control of anything less than overall tax rates, public expenditure rates, interest rates—the whole lot. That is a massive transfer of power—or "competence" —from member states—or this House—to the new Union.
That is not simply "tidying up". It is worse. It completely contradicts what the Chancellor said in his statement, when he decided to shelve our membership of the euro. He said that we needed more flexibility to make it work in the future. That is another habit that the Government have of talking about the world economy, with its dynamism and flexibility, as a model for us. They suggest that it would make our own economy, and that of the eurozone, work better. However, at the same time the Government are converging our economy with the European Union model, characterised—unfortunately—by low growth, inflexibility, over-taxation, over-regulation and tragically high unemployment. That is no longer a game, because the European constitution, as drafted, will enshrine the European Union model for all time. We will not have the option ever again. We will have to converge, finally and completely, with a model that has delivered—in Germany alone—nearly 5 million people out of work.
Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Indeed, when a country such as Ireland rightly decides on a lower tax policy that attracts a lot of business and creates jobs—and then receives more tax revenue on lower rates of taxation—the European Union says it is anti-competitive and they must stop it. That is just the sort of thing that this wide-ranging shared competence—or massive power—will allow the EU to do, to stop people succeeding.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My right hon. Friend is right. Harmonisation is always upwards. Taxes and regulations always rise to the higher level. I repeat my point that that is not just a power being granted under the constitution, but an instruction. It will definitely happen, unless that provision is removed. I was surprised that the Foreign Secretary did not even mention that point. Still less did he argue against it.
Mr. Bercow: The cession of sovereignty to which my right hon. Friend refers is the flipside of the coin of the cession of sovereignty in relation to monetary policy. Does he agree that it was foolish of the Foreign Secretary to cite Romano Prodi, for it was he who is clearly on record as saying that the euro can lead only to closer and closer integration of countries' economic policy. He went on, ominously and rather impertinently, to add that that demands that member states give up more sovereignty. We cannot say that we were not warned.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is right. It was openly conceded on the continent among politicians at the Convention that that is the case. If we are to have a European state with its own currency, we need centralised economic management, including the management of taxes. The draft already contains
432
provision for the erosion of the unanimity principle on taxation. That is one of the Government's red lines, but they will have to fight on many fronts. They need to take all the stuff about majority voting out before they start, and I know from bitter experience that international negotiation is not a one-way street. The bargaining process in the European Union is usually that one representative agrees to do something that is bad for his country, if the other also agrees to do something that is had for his country. Everybody has to give way on something. The idea that we will be able to take everything within the red lines out, without having to accept anything in return, is fantastically innocent and naive.
Substantial areas of policy that must at present be decided under the unanimity process will be transferred to qualified majority voting. Giscard d'Estaing, the president of the Convention, last week mentioned 50 such areas. I have been able to count only just over 30, but I defer to his superior knowledge. The Foreign Secretary was asked early in the debate what the new areas of competence were, and I can add the example of energy, which has come from nowhere. There is presently no treaty base for EU legislation or action on energy policy in the existing treaties, but it now appears in the draft constitution. The power given will be to ensure the security of energy supply. I know from my earlier work as a junior Energy Minister that the Commission has been itching to gain some measure of control over North sea oil and gas, as a strategic reservoir in times of oil embargo or international disruption. That will give the Commission the ability to do that by majority voting. Clearly, that could override our own concerns.
Ms Stuart: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the debate about the move to QMV. The 50 areas identified by Giscard d'Estaing include matters such as court appointments. However, we must be clear that energy has been a shared competence, which the Commission adopted on the basis of article 308. As I understand it, the UK would prefer to put the matter on a proper footing in a treaty, rather then relying on that rather extensive article.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I hate to disagree with the hon. Lady—whom I sometimes think of as my hon. Friend. We used to march together, on occasions, in our attempts to defend the interests of this House. However, on this matter I must disagree with her. I would rather have energy dealt with under the existing flexibility clause, as unanimity at least gives us a veto. Once it is moved to its own treaty base, matters to do with energy will be dealt with by QMV. Britain's unique interest in energy could be overridden, so I do not agree with the hon. Lady on that matter.
My point is that whole new legal bases were put into the draft constitution at quite a late stage. A bigger example is that of criminal justice and policing. The draft constitution contains powers to harmonise criminal laws and procedures by majority voting.
This House debated those sensitive matters very recently. Our ability to control and hold accountable magistrates, judges and the police, and our sense of ownership of our criminal justice system, are vital. Those matters lie at the heart of our work in this place,

433
as does the concept of the nation state. We are dealing with the coercive power of the state over its citizens. A state can imprison people, and giving up that power in favour of some more remote jurisdiction is very dangerous. It certainly contradicts the instruction in the Laeken mandate to design a Union that is closer to its citizens.
How is a close Union created by taking decision making away from the citizen and from this House, and passing it upwards to a more remote tier of Government? I asked that question persistently in the Convention, and I was never given an answer.
I think that I can assert without any doubt that the structure and essence of the draft constitution are now fixed and that the constitution will reduce the power of this House. We have been offered some crumbs in the form of a subsidiarity check. The Foreign Secretary said in a speech yesterday that the new mechanism would make sure that the Union
"respects the principle of subsidiarity."
I am afraid that it will do no such thing. The mechanism involved is only a request.
The Foreign Secretary went on to say that he was sure that the Commission would "get the message". I am afraid that that is all that it will get. If the Commission gets such a request from one third of member state Parliaments, the draft protocol provides that the Commission "shall review its proposal", after which it
"may decide to maintain, amend or withdraw its proposal."
Well, thanks very much, but we can do that already. We can send the Commission a message asking it to review a proposal, and it can say no. That situation is going to persist, and there will be no additional power for this House. Against that, we are losing massive powers as a result of the loss of the national veto in so many areas. Also, the whole area of criminal justice and policing is being moved out of the third pillar, where it was corralled precisely to protect its intergovernmental nature. It is now being put into the main treaty structure, with majority voting.
The draft protocol means that all the other institutions of Europe get more power, but not national Parliaments. The Council probably gets the least extra power; it has paid a heavy price for the symbol of having a full-time President to chair its quarterly meetings. The new president of Europe will not be a serving head of government, answerable to an electorate. That is specifically ruled out. The President of the Commission may take on the job, as that is allowed for in the draft, but I absolutely agree with the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies), that there would be a diminution in the concept that elected heads of Government or state should be in charge.
Many people are dismissive of the idea of the rotating presidency. I rather agree with it; it gives small countries in particular a feeling that they can occasionally have some real influence, and it brings the Union closer to citizens if the presidency is parked for a few months in individual capitals instead of always being run from Brussels. The proposals seem to go in the opposite direction to the constant injunction that we should bring the whole thing closer to the citizen.
434
Finally, I turn to the common foreign and security policy. There will be majority voting—that is a red line, if one defined in an extraordinarily contorted phrase, which I shall read out for the benefit of anyone interested in Euro-speak—
"when adopting a decision on a Union action or position, on a proposal which the Minister puts forward to it following a specific request to him from the European Council made at its own initiative or that of the Minister".
I have read that several times, and I am still none the wiser; suffice it to say that there is provision for some majority voting on a common foreign and security policy. The British Government are against it, and I am glad of that at least.
Even if the Government manage to take out that red line, however, there will still be a European Foreign Minister who "shall" conduct the Union's common foreign and security policy. The text is littered with obligations for member states to conform to the policy concerned. The best, and clearest, is in article I-15:
"Member states shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the acts adopted by the Union in this area."
It is sometimes said that something similar to that wording can be found in existing treaties. That is true, but they are treaties, and this is an enforceable constitution. We know that from looking at the new powers of the European Commission, which is given a new job:
"It shall ensure the application of the Constitution".
The European Court of Justice
"shall ensure respect for the law in the interpretation and application of the Constitution."
Finally, and perhaps clearest of all, the draft states that the constitution
"shall have primacy over the law of Member States."
It is all down in black and white; we do not have to speculate about it.
We had a debate earlier about the significance of the primacy clause, and it has been alleged in some quarters that it is already in the existing treaties. That is not true. The case law of the European Court of Justice has established over the years that Community law is superior to that of member states, but we are adding that unconditionally into an article in a constitution. I know that the British Government are concerned about that from comments made by the Leader of the House in plenary sessions of the Convention and from the amendments that he tabled there. The point is rightly of concern to the Government, but are they going to try to have it removed?
The significant point is not that Union law will have primacy, although one can argue about the merits of that. The point is that the constitution will have primacy, and that is a wholly new concept, because there is no constitution at present. When there is one, it will, in all respects, whether in passing law or in demanding solidarity or mutual obligation, have primacy over the laws of member states. That is a giant step forward. It is completely new, and it is absurd to call the process a tidying-up exercise.
We must have a national debate between the end of the Convention and the start of the intergovernmental conference. For that to take place, we need a White

435
Paper from the Government. I agree with what the Liberal Democrat spokesman said on the subject earlier—it is very important that the Government now tell us what they can accept, what they cannot accept, and what they hope to achieve so that we can have a national debate. An even more fundamental precondition is that we are all honest about what is in the draft. If these changes are so good for this country, let the Government argue the case for them. It is intolerable that they should pretend that it is merely a matter of tidying up what we have already. These changes are of giant constitutional significance. If they have merits, let us hear what they are. I will argue the opposite, and we can have an honest debate.
Finally, and most importantly, after all that is done, this matter can be decided only by the people. I often disagree with Valéry Giscard d'Estaing—I have had many spats with him in the past 15 months—but right at the start he said something that was true. He said that treaties are for Governments but constitutions are for people.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that the time limit of 10 minutes imposed by Mr. Speaker now applies to Back-Bench speeches.
5.6 pm
Mr. Eric Illsley: It is an interesting time for European affairs, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said. I welcome the statement on the single currency made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few days ago. I hope that this country can now start moving towards the convergence to which he referred in his speech and towards a single currency.
On the European Convention and the Thessaloniki European summit, I do not intend to follow the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) save to say that his comments were only to be expected. I think that that was why the Conservative party suggested that he should be its delegate to the Convention—because of his history of Euroscepticism. The hysteria that Conservative Members generate towards aspects of the European Union never fails to amaze me. Some of the hysterical outpourings in recent times have been incredible.
The constitution is in draft form; it is not yet completed. It has to go to the European summit and then to an intergovernmental conference, yet we are debating it as though it were cast in stone and about to be deposited on us. It is some time away. To start talking at this stage about whether the matter should be put to a referendum is incredible. The right hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members say that Maastricht and the other treaties were then, but this is now and we should have a referendum because this is a constitution. That is not the case. We did not have a referendum on Maastricht. The then Prime Minister rejected any such
436
referendum. It was dealt with like any other treaty—it was put before the House in the form of an Act of Parliament.
Mr. William Cash rose—
Mr. Illsley: I shall not give way as I am restricted to 10 minutes. Other hon. Members have taken longer than that, so I do not have time.
We have had no other referendums on such matters and I do not see why we should have one now. The right hon. Member for Wells went on about the constitutional changes and the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) went on about the new competencies. Perhaps they are reading the wrong document. I do not see it like that.
As for the new newspaper polls that pass themselves off as referendums—obviously, I am referring to the Daily Mail poll and individuals were ringing radio programmes and contacting the press to say how many times they had voted in that—the figures quoted must be treated with a large dose of salts.
The constitutional Convention has been sitting for about 15 months. I pay tribute to both my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who also serves on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the right hon. Member for Wells as they have spent masses of time in Europe at meetings and all the rest and have worked hard. However, the process has been going on for 15 months without receiving any press coverage; now, it is generating anti-European hysteria. I find it surprising that we face a barrage of anti-European rhetoric about a draft document that is yet to be decided, and that will be decided over the next few months.
I want to consider some aspects of the draft constitution. I am beginning to think that perhaps "draft constitution" is the wrong title for it. Perhaps the Convention should have used a different title to avoid confusing it with, for example, a country's constitution, which was what the right hon. Member for Devizes was aiming at when he talked about a constitution superseding aspects of our constitution. Neither I nor many other people see it as taking over aspects of our constitution: it simply sets out and codifies treaties and European legislation that are already in existence. Again, the whole thing must be agreed unanimously by all member Governments and ratified. We are therefore a long way away from a final document.
When the final decision is taken we will have a single document setting out clearly all the European treaties and documents, whereas, at the moment, anybody who wanted to find the acquis communautaire or other European legislation would have to refer to a whole range of documents and treaties. The right hon. Member for Wells talked about bringing Europe closer to the people, and the fact that we will have a single document will bring it closer to the people, as it will be easier to see what European Union law will be. It will make the adoption of all European Union legislation subject to the prior scrutiny of national Parliaments and the double approval of both national Governments in the EU Council and directly elected MPs.
One problem with European legislation coming through this House is that it receives hardly any scrutiny whatever. We have European Standing Committees A

437
and B, which I was instrumental in setting up a few years ago in the Procedure Committee, and now the European Scrutiny Committee. Draft directives debated in this House, however, are few and far between. We have seen that recently with the end-of-life vehicles directive being implemented in law, and the directive in relation to the disposal of refrigeration equipment. Little information was provided about those, and little scrutiny. An unsuspecting public therefore face European directives that the House has not really debated or had the opportunity to amend. I welcome further scrutiny of all EU legislation, as that is an improvement that gives us, as representatives of our communities, the chance to have an input into European legislation, which, so far, we have not really had. That would bring it closer to the people.
On qualified majority voting and the removal of some vetoes, the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) referred to an article, which probably appeared in a newspaper this evening, saying that the EU has rejected our proposals on asylum. Perhaps that has happened as a result of use of the veto. If the veto had not been available, and the decision had been taken by QMV, our proposals on that aspect of asylum and immigration might have been accepted. Having the veto in every area is therefore perhaps not the great thing that it appears to be. Moving to qualified majority voting in a number of areas might allow us to get some sensible proposals accepted around Europe that previously we have not been able to do.
The Government have said many times that there will be exceptions to qualified majority voting in which we will retain the veto, notably tax, social security, foreign policy and defence. I welcome that.
I welcome, too, the red and yellow card idea, whereby if several national Parliaments opposed a legislative proposal it could be rejected. That would give national representatives more chances to affect European legislation. We could lobby for changes and reject completely unacceptable aspects of legislative policy.
There has been discussion of the idea that an elected president or chair should serve for a term of two and a half years. Over the past few years, I have travelled in Europe with the Foreign Affairs Committee, meeting the holders of the EU presidency. Each of them is required to draw up a programme for their six months in office and to chair EU meetings in their country. That is an unwieldy situation that will get worse with enlargement and it cannot continue. We need some stability; we do not need the current six-month programmes but a long-range programme for the EU, without constant chopping and changing.
I do not understand the attitude of Opposition Members. We should deal with these proposals as we have dealt with treaties in the past—by means of a Bill in this place. We should reject the hysteria for a referendum. We have not held one on previous occasions. Furthermore, Conservative Prime Ministers repeatedly rejected them.
Mr. Redwood rose—
Mr. Bryant: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you advise me? I have before me a press release, issued by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) several hours ago, which begins:
438
"Speaking in the House of Commons on 18th June, John Redwood said:".
It then sets out what I presume is the speech that he has not yet made, unless I have missed something. Can you confirm that to issue such a press release is to presume that he would catch your eye? I am only a new Member, but he is an experienced Member and such a presumption on his part would surely be to go too far. After all—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman's point of order.
Mr. Bryant: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.
This is not the US Senate where Members can simply issue a press release and it is then written into the record; we have to catch the eye of the Speaker. Are you not especially surprised by this press release, Madam Deputy Speaker, bearing in mind the number of times that the right hon. Gentleman has inveighed against the Government for issuing press releases before—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have understood the hon. Gentleman's point of order, but it is not a point of order for the Chair. My only comment is that it was perhaps a little unwise of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) to have issued a press release at this point in time.
5.18 pm
Mr. John Redwood: I am grateful to you for your courtesy, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have not presumed; I merely set out some comments for the press. The press release was embargoed and issued only on the basis that I might be called, so I am grateful that I was called—[Interruption.] When the press release was given to journalists, the basis on which it was issued was explained. The point of order was simply an attempt to put the Opposition off their stride, as they are making the House and the country aware of the revolutionary document that is the draft constitution.
The document represents a massive shift in the relative powers of the member states of the EU, creating a powerful centralised Union with its own legal personality. A big power grab is being accomplished in the field of criminal justice and law, and in immigration and asylum policy, which the Government welcome and urge on the EU. There will be a big shift in the relative powers on foreign policy and defence. I shall concentrate my brief remarks on those points.
The draft constitution makes it clear that the member states
"shall support the Union's common foreign and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity … The member states shall work together to enhance and develop their mutual political solidarity … and … refrain from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union or likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations".
Mr. MacShane: The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, quoting from the existing treaties negotiated by the Government of whom he was a member. There is nothing new at all in what he has just said.
Mr. Redwood: I am quoting from the draft constitution. What is new is that the three pillars are

439
being collapsed into one, so such things are justiciable in the European Court of Justice for the first time and will become legally binding. That has to be seen in the context of the very wide-ranging aims for the Union set out for the first time in new language in the draft constitution.
If the United Kingdom were to accept the draft constitution and we wanted to undertake action with the United States of America in Iraq, and the European Union did not like that, the EU would have an effective veto against our action for the first time. The EU could appeal to the ECJ, which could rule that such action was against the interests of the Union and the objectives set out in the constitution. That is a very decisive shift in the relative powers of the member state and the Union in foreign affairs. That is clearly buttressed in the draft document by creating a very powerful minister for foreign affairs,
"who shall conduct political dialogue on the Union's behalf and shall express the Union's position in international organisations and in international conferences."
The document goes on to make it very clear that that very powerful man will chair the Foreign Affairs Council, so he will be senior to our Foreign Secretary, whoever he may be. He will have the most decisive power over setting the agenda of the Foreign Affairs Council and, in certain circumstances, he will be able to act without direct controls from the Council when things are fast-moving and he is given some discretion.
Of course, the foreign affairs minister is also the man or woman who will attend the United Nations Security Council and put our case—the case of the EU—whatever the UK or France might think was the right case to put and whatever they might like to do with their seats on the Security Council. The Government's defence is to say that the EU foreign affairs minister could not become a member of the UN Security Council without changing the charter and the arrangements at the UN. That is where the draft constitution is so clever. Ministers are correct in saying that, but, to get round that point, the constitution says that member states that are members of the Security Council will in the execution of their functions defend the positions and the interests of the Union and that the member states that are members of the Security Council
"shall request that the Minister for Foreign Affairs be asked to present the Union's position."
We will not be requested to allow the EU Minister for Foreign Affairs to represent us. There will be no dialogue; nor will we have any influence in the matter. It very clear that, for the first time in foreign affairs, there will be a legally binding requirement under the draft constitution, if approved, for the EU Minister for Foreign Affairs to put our case at the UN and effectively to override our independent seat on that very important body.
As other hon. Members have already said, the power to override and construct international agreements will be generally given to the Union—it is a prime competence, where the Union will have the first say—so not just in foreign affairs, but in practically every area, the Union can bind us by virtue of having the power to settle international agreements. All the Union has to do
440
is find a few other countries around the world that will do a deal with it and enter into an international agreement, which will be legally binding on the member states under the clauses of the constitution, and we will then be circumscribed in our powers to legislate on such matters.
As we have heard during the debate, the Government say that there is no need to worry because we already have a veto on EU foreign policy and that that veto will remain in place. Of course, that is quite true, but the Government are suppressing from the House the secret veto—the veto that the EU will gain over anything that we might wish to do, by virtue of the very strong clauses on mutual solidarity and loyalty to the Union's policy. We will have to explain to the Union anything that we might choose to do, and the Union could use the very clever structure of the constitution to say that anything that we wanted to do was against the Union's aims and objectives. That would be justiciable in the ECJ, and we would face injunction or infraction proceedings against us if we tried to preserve our current independence in foreign affairs.
In this debate, we are invited to refer to the interesting report by the European Scrutiny Committee on the role of national Parliaments. One good aspect of the draft constitution, if it survives, is that the Council of Ministers would be open to the public when it meets as a legislature. Although that would be a distinct improvement, the measure does not go far enough. The Council of Ministers, as a legislature, lacks a formal opposition. No one in the legislature is charged with saying that a law is not needed, that a law is bad or that a draft does not work.
The Minister knows, as do I from attending many such meetings, that the process works by virtue of negotiation among countries to broker national interests. No formal group is charged with the duty of opposing draft legislation by questioning the overall need for it and providing sensible commentary on its detail, which is thought to be entirely appropriate in this House. We should think about how a formal opposition could be implemented in the powerful legislature of the Council of Ministers given that the draft constitution says that it could presume to legislate on practically everything of interest to Governments.
The Minister thinks that the situation is terribly funny but he presumably believes sufficiently in British parliamentary democracy to accept that the Opposition have an important role when dealing with national legislation. However, no one has a similar role in the Council of Ministers because its proceedings are based on a different presumption. The system means that we already get far too much legislation from Brussels and if the draft constitution is passed, we shall be deluged with even more legislation, much of which will be agreed by qualified majority voting, on many matters on which the Commission is establishing more territorial control and exercising more power.
Mr. Wayne David: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the European Scrutiny Committee's excellent report. Does he agree with the report's recommendation for an early-warning mechanism through which national Parliaments could

441
receive recommendations from the Commission, deliberate on them and, hopefully, say no if they disagree with the Commission's suggestions?
Mr. Redwood: I would like as good a measure and as much advance warning and opportunity for debate as possible. It would help if this Government's Ministers adopted a practice that I adopted as a Minister—when my colleagues allowed me. [Interruption.] There were times when I was allowed to adopt it. Ministers should give hon. Members a sufficiently early opportunity to debate an EU proposal that is likely to become a law that would affect Britain, or a directive for us to introduce a law, so that the House may form a view and offer Ministers advice before they negotiate the law on our behalf. It is a more productive use of our time to debate a draft law while Ministers still have the opportunity to influence it than to debate it after it has been agreed by the Council of Ministers—the effective legislature—and passed into law because at that time what we think does not matter and our views are of little use.
If the draft constitution is accepted, we could try to claim that a law offends the rules of subsidiarity but I doubt whether the proposed system will work. I cannot imagine any law being rejected on the ground of subsidiarity under the weak and feeble provisions of the current draft constitution. I urge the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe to take the mood of the House seriously. The rather weak yellow card should be upgraded to a red card because the concept of subsidiarity will otherwise have no meaning.
I am most preoccupied by the way in which the attitude in the constitution shows that the European Union has more or less completed its task of establishing its supremacy and occupying territory on every major aspect of government for which it wants to take powers. If one reads the fundamental rights and aims and the many words describing what the Union is all about, no one can doubt that the state and its Government are more or less complete. It is not a federal state; it is highly centralised with enormously powerful ambitions. The state wishes to move quickly toward having a common military force and it wants Europe to re-arm. For that reason, the draft constitution establishes an armaments agency, which will urge member states to make good the deficiencies in their current pattern of armaments and, obviously, to spend far more on armaments. One thing that disturbs the architects of the new European superpower is that although it has great ambition, it does not have well-equipped military forces that can be projected abroad easily, because it does not have the transport or the sophisticated weaponry. The draft constitution is in no small measure about trying to remedy that defect through that powerful agency and the powers that the Union wishes to take to urge, and then probably to demand, that member states re-arm so that its power can be projected by strong transport and better weaponry around the world.
I put to the House—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman's time is up.
5.30 pm
Mr. Ian Davidson: The disconnection between the public and the political elite is greater on Europe than on any other policy. The divergence between what is being done in the name of the people and their actual views is wider on that than on anything else. We have to take that seriously. For some time, this Government and other Governments have proceeded almost against the will of the general public. That has contributed to the general sense of alienation from politics that we experience in Britain, as demonstrated by low turnouts, votes for extremist parties and other symptoms.
The air of inevitability about many of the European initiatives and ventures does not mean that the public at large have enthusiastically adopted those proposals; rather, it reflects the public's assumption that they will be unable to affect the direction in which the political elite are leading the country and that things will happen irrespective of their opposition. That is not a healthy environment. In the light of those circumstances, I am extremely supportive of the calls for a referendum on the new European constitution.
A referendum would act as a brake on the implementation of the constitution until the public are convinced that that they want to move in that direction. I have no doubt that without the clear commitment to hold a referendum before deciding whether to join the euro, the Government would already be in the process of taking us into it. What they have been unable to handle is the test of public opinion. The commitment to a referendum for such a major step forward is essential.
I do not accept—indeed, I did not accept it at the time—the assurances given to us by the former Minister for Europe that the new constitution was simply a tidying-up exercise. Many hon. Members who are more knowledgeable than I am gave the details of some of the proposals. It was always an insult to people's intelligence to suggest that it was mainly a tidying-up process. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) suggested, there has been an insidious process of accretion of powers to the centre throughout the life of the Common Market, the European Community and now the European Union. The development of a new constitution takes that process a step further.
Although I accept that matters are not yet agreed, as several Labour Members explained, we are entitled to be extremely suspicious of the proposals that have so far come forward and to seek clarification on the Government's negotiating position. Previous treaties contained the assumption of ever-closer union. I should like the Minister to clarify whether the Government have been working and will work to have that removed, so that there is no assumption of the ever-greater accretion of powers to the centre. We need a clear statement that, if the process is completed and a new treaty is agreed, what has been achieved is the end of the road until such time as another treaty revision takes place, and there will not be a continuing process of accretion. We are entitled to ask the Government for a clear statement on that.
We are also entitled to ask whether provision will be made for some of the powers already taken to the centre to be brought back. If the Government are prepared to

443
negotiate that, and if they achieve it, what powers and areas of responsibility that have previously been sucked into the centre do they believe should be the subject of subsidiarity? What powers will they wish to bring back to us?
I have always taken the view that a free trade area, which was the purpose for which the Common Market was established, would inevitably develop its own currency, constitution and state, and that many people would welcome that. I was struck by the picture on television at the end of the Convention process, when we saw the then Minister for Europe standing to attention with the other delegates while the "Ode to Joy" was played. That seemed to demonstrate that the creation of a European superstate was under way. There is an argument for that, but the Government would be more honest and have a much better chance of commanding public opinion if they came out and argued the logic of their position and explained why they thought that that was desirable and essential—which presumably they do, if they support it.
Mr. MacShane: This may be a conversation for the Tea Room, but is my hon. Friend about to argue that at their football matches, all Scots should stand to attention when the British national anthem is played and treat it with full respect, honour and dignity?
Mr. Davidson: What a silly point. I do not generally attend football matches, but I attend rugby matches. The British national anthem, which I understand to be "God Save the Queen", is usually played as the English national anthem when England are playing. I am quite prepared to support it in those circumstances.
I am tempted to say, "What exactly is your point, caller?" If it is suggested that the "Ode to Joy" is a national anthem, and therefore that it was appropriate for the Minister for Europe to stand to attention, exactly whose national anthem is it? As far as I am aware, the "Ode to Joy" is not the national anthem of any individual member country of the European Union. The Ministers were standing to attention on the basis that it was the anthem of the European Union. That was the point that I was trying to make, which the Minister has greatly helped to clarify, to the edification of the assembled multitude.
I turn to the European Union's achievements to date. We are entitled to ask whether we should continue to go down that road and whether the EU has been an enormous success. The questions can be answered by examining the common agricultural policy. Any organisation that runs an agricultural policy in the way that the CAP has been run is not entitled to much further support. I cannot help but think that we could do worse than be out of the CAP.
Another policy area that we can consider to see how the European Union has behaved is fraud. The scale of fraud, waste and corruption in the EU would never be entertained in a local authority or any other establishment or organisation. The scale of fraud cannot even be accurately estimated. The very body to which we might look for statistics, EUROSTAT, is currently the
444
subject of fraud investigations. The tolerance of such malpractice for some considerable time damns those who have been responsible for the running of the EU.
Mr. David: Will my hon. Friend stop in his diatribe of the European Union to acknowledge that many facets of it have brought positive advantages to his constituency? I am thinking simply of jobs.
Mr. Davidson: If I did not believe that aspects of the European Union had brought gains to my constituency, I would be in favour of withdrawal, but I am not. I am in favour of drastic reform and abolishing some aspects of the EU's work that it does not do well. I am in favour of returning some powers to a national level, but I believe that we should still have a European Union. If we cleaned up its act, it would continue to provide some gains and could in some circumstances produce even greater ones. However, we should be much more vigorous in pursuing reform.
I am conscious that speeches are subject to a time limit, but in the few moments that remain to me I wish to refer to the question of a referendum and its impact on the Government. The momentum for a referendum on a question that relates to Europe is virtually unstoppable. By standing in the face of that momentum, the Government will be alienating even more public opinion than they have already alienated on this question. This is a question not only of Europe, but of the Government being prepared to listen to the people and willing to take account of public opinion. The fact that we are not doing that on this issue could dangerously imperil the Government and their re-election, to which I am completely committed. That is what will happen if we continue to stand against the tide of public opinion about a referendum.
I therefore hope that the Government will be able to ignore the fact that the referendum proposal is also supported by the Conservatives, examine it on its own merits and recognise that, if they are genuine about building a pro-European consensus, they must do so by persuasion and not by ramming the changes through without allowing the people a voice.
5.41 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) made a sincere and powerful speech. I only hope that Ministers will have listened to what he said on the basis of the sincere points that he made. He did not try to score any political points, but simply pointed out that the people of Britain are getting fed up to the back teeth with what they see as an ever-increasing process of taking away from their sovereignty and are annoyed about having no right to say anything about it.
The hon. Gentleman was also right about voting figures, which I wish all Governments would bear in mind. Turnout in European elections has dropped to 25 per cent. I also have with me the figures for national elections. Between 1979 and 2001, the number of people voting Conservative fell from 13.7 million to 8.4 million. Labour numbers did not rise, but fell from 11.5 million to 10.7 million, and the Liberal Democrat figure rose a little, from 4.2 million to 4.8 million. The strangest thing, however, was that the only parties to increase

445
their vote substantially were the other parties—the strange, unusual ones with all the nutty ideas. People are getting fed up with our democracy, which is being undermined.
What depresses me is that throughout all the debates—as an old man, I have been in the House for a long time and I have had the opportunity to vote against all the treaties—no matter who is in power and who the Minister is, we always get the same speech. It is the same speech that we heard from the Government Front Bench earlier: "There is nothing much in this proposal, there is nothing to worry about and we have got safeguards." Every single time, however, a substantial amount of power has gone and Britain has been much damaged.
In relation to what the Government have said about asylum, for example, I should like to mention a story that appeared on page 4 of today's Evening Standard. As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, take life very seriously, I am sure that you will remember that in March the Home Secretary announced new plans to deal with asylum seekers. He said that we would control the problem by setting up centres outside the European Union and that we would put all the asylum seekers in Albania or on an island and consider things carefully. The proposal was welcomed by some and widely discussed. Some people said that it was silly and others said that it was a great idea, but the Government announced it, and now a Foreign Office spokesman has made a statement saying that, sadly, it has gone. It is out and it has finished, basically because the EU does not want it. That is one area out of a whole series in which powers have gone—something that should concern us all.
I should like briefly to put to the Government five simple points. First, notwithstanding the attitude that he seems to take to those who criticise the Government, will the Minister assure me that he will do all in his power to prevent the passing of legislation on the Convention that would reduce our rebate from the European Union? When Mrs. Thatcher was Prime Minister, she fought hard for that rebate because we were paying far too much. We know—not from anything that the Government have done, but because we have a very hard-working Committee—that part of the arrangement means that the rebate could be reduced. I simply ask the Government to do all that they can to remove from the treaty, the constitution or whatever it is called the clauses that would give the majority an opportunity to undermine us.
Secondly, will the Minister try hard to ensure that the new proposal to allow withdrawal—which can be found on page 46 of the progress report, dealing with article 159—is clarified? This is the first time any treaty or similar arrangement has contained a provision allowing a member state to withdraw. As has been pointed out, the only country that has ever got out is Greenland, and it got out only because every other member state approved a law allowing it to do so.
The trouble is that before a member state can withdraw there must be an agreement between the Council of Ministers and that member state, which must then be approved by a qualified majority and also by the European Parliament. That provides no guarantee whatever. It means that a country wishing to withdraw—certainly, I think that any organisation is strengthened by the granting of an opportunity to
446
withdraw from it—will not have the right to do so unless it can present a proposal that is acceptable to the Council of Ministers and to the European Parliament. There should be a provision entitling a country wishing to withdraw to do so. There should be a guarantee, and the possibility of an independent choice.
Thirdly, I simply want to ask the Government what on earth we are going to do about agriculture. We had a splendid Secretary of State for International Development, who sadly resigned. I feared that the new Secretary of State might not be quite so good—that she might be a softie—but she too is a splendid person, called Lady Amos. I received a letter from her today, which thrilled me. She wrote:
"EU citizens provide €45 billion of taxes to fund the CAP and a further €50 billion from their pockets to buy more expensive products. This situation is not only morally bankrupt, but also economically and environmentally unsustainable. We cannot preach fair trade abroad while practising protectionism at home."
That is the clearest message we have had from a Minister about the CAP. It accepts that the CAP is one of the most shocking, appalling, disgraceful arrangements that we have ever had in any democracy, that it costs a fortune, that the farmers who did pretty well when it began are now not doing well at all, and—crucially—that the people who are suffering horribly as a result of it are those in the third world.
If we have to give a lot of money to farmers and if, because we have too many farmers, we have to give more, that is a matter for us. What we are not entitled to do is engage in the horrible business of dumping food on the world market in a way that causes devastation in the third world. The perfect example is sugar. One would think that the EU should be importing sugar because other countries, unlike us, can grow it successfully, but in fact we export it at a price four times the world value. We also spend a fortune dumping it in the third world, and those who live in some of the poorest areas suffer.
The situation is shameful. It is horrible. It is shocking. We all know that—we have been talking about it for years. Moreover, it is getting worse and worse. It will get worse still following the extension of the EU to include such countries as Poland and Romania. There is no way in which we will persuade the EU to reform the CAP, because that would mean some countries suffering more than others. Although Governments of all complexions have shouted that the CAP will be reformed, as indeed have Liberal Democrats—those who are sincere—it is a non-starter. It will not happen; it cannot happen. The situation can only get worse. I would like the Government to say what they are going to do about it. People in the third world are suffering enormously, and it seems to me that the only way in which we can take action is to say, "No more treaties unless we have some reform", and certainly to put a block on money. That is absolutely vital.
I ask the Government in all sincerity whether, to assist people and to try to tell the truth about Europe, they could issue a balance sheet that tells us about the money that we have to pay in. Many people are shocked when I tell them that every hour—24 hours a day, seven days a week—we send a cheque for £1.4 million to the EU. It would make a huge difference to people in places where there is a great deal of poverty, misery and degradation, and where money is needed because their local authorities do not have it, if they could get a cheque for

447
£1.4 million. Those people would like to know how much we have paid into the EU since we joined and how much we have got out. A lot of the money that comes in is totally wasted, of course, but nevertheless it is half of the amount that goes out. Could we not have a note saying what the cost has been?
On trade, it appals me when people say, apparently sincerely, that we must stay in Europe because of the trade. That is a load of codswallop. Just last week, figures were published showing that when we established the single market, which was meant to offer guarantees of more trade to people in Britain, France and Germany, the countries that enjoyed more trade than any others were America and Japan. Although America was not a member of the EU, in the period from the establishment of the single market to 2000, American exports to the area went up by twice as much as those of France and Germany, and Japanese exports went up by 27 per cent. more.
The idea that we must simply stay in because of jobs and trade is a load of codswallop. If anyone doubts that, they should have been with me in Norway and Switzerland when they had their referendums. All these clever EU people were saying, "You've got to join, otherwise jobs will be destroyed and the people will be ruined", yet of course those countries are among the most prosperous in the world.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his time.
5.52 pm
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I was one of a band—sadly, rather a small band—of Members who regularly attended the Standing Committee on the Convention on the Future of Europe. I pay tribute to our representatives on the Convention, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), both of whom represented robustly and vigorously the interests of this House and of the British people. I congratulate them on that and on the way in which they reported back to us.
I have long been a supporter of enlargement. Indeed, almost all hon. Members seem to support it, primarily for the reason that it will make the European Union a much more sensible organisation. It will inevitably lead to a loosening of the relationship between the nations of Europe: that will make it work much better. It is interesting that the most effective speech against enlargement that I have heard was made during the previous Parliament by Sir Edward Heath, the former leader of the Conservative party, who feared that it would lead us away from federalism and a strong, concentrated, state of Europe towards a looser arrangement of independent, democratic states, which is what the great majority of British people, and the great majority of Members of this House, really want. That is why I support enlargement. Some are concerned that smaller, weaker nations want to share in the wealth and prosperity of western Europe. We may hope that that will be one of the by-products of enlargement, but that is not necessarily so. I shall come to that in a little while.
448
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that the 25 nations of the proposed enlarged European Union would constitute the geographical limits of Europe. I would refer him to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) and to a trenchant and impressive speech made by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) some weeks ago, in which he asked how we define Europe. I think that it goes well beyond the definition that the Foreign Secretary used. One might say that it stretches from the Atlantic to the Urals, but the Urals are well east of where it is proposed that the European Union will stop. If we are talking about a cultural Europe, I suspect that there are Russian-speaking citizens of Vladivostok who like Pushkin, Tchaikovsky and football, who are in many ways not dissimilar from ourselves, and who would equally call themselves Europeans, yet Vladivostok is a long way from the European Union. So we have to be careful about the way in which we define Europe and I look forward to possible further expansion in future.
I want to devote most of my speech to the euro, not only our membership of it but its future. If anything will undermine and destroy the European Union, it is the euro and it is time that Europe considered getting rid of it and embarking on another economic way forward. Since last week, we have entered a new era beyond the five economic tests. The political landscape in both Britain and Europe is different. Britain will not join the euro for the foreseeable future and even a referendum appears to be some years ahead. To me, all the warm words resemble those of a lover who says to his girlfriend, "I love you, but we're incompatible and I don't want to marry you."
The euro is a serious matter for existing members of that currency and us. Clearly, the Treasury has considered it and does not want to have much to do with it. It was badly burned by the exchange rate mechanism experience and noted our strong and rapid recovery once we departed from the ERM. We had the strongest growth perhaps for some decades immediately after we got out of the bind caused by being tied to the European currencies. Doubtless, the Chancellor has considered that and spoken to his Treasury colleagues and I am pleased by what he said.
Perhaps the Chancellor has read the wise words of Professor Wilhelm Nolling, who, until some years ago, was a SPD politician—effectively on our side—in the German Parliament. After that, he was a director of the Bundesbank and now he is an economics professor at Hamburg. He recently said:
"The present euro zone structure is devastating for Germany … Our economy is bleeding. And I am convinced the UK would be crazy to join—you should stay out for as long as I can foresee."
Those are the words of a former director of the Bundesbank. As for the German economy, Professor Nolling continued:
"Deflation has already arrived, in that our economic dynamism has disappeared … There is no willingness among the private sector to invest, and euro zone rules have cut back public investment to an extent we haven't seen since the war."
Germany has some serious problems inside the eurozone because it cannot adjust interest rates to suit its economy, yet interest rates for the zone are too high for Germany. It cannot depreciate its currency, yet the euro is appreciating strongly against the dollar,

449
increasing Germany's problems. In a sensible world, Germany would want to depreciate its currency significantly to become more competitive again, yet it cannot relax its fiscal policy and has been told to tighten it. When a country is in a recession and anticipating serious deflation, being told to deflate the economy by tightening fiscal policy is clearly economic nonsense.
Let us consider enlargement and the euro. When weak economies are dragged into such an arrangement and bolted on to strong economies, they can experience serious problems, especially if their internal economy is inflating faster. In the past couple of years, Argentina was overcome by disaster when it bolted its currency to the dollar in the hope that it could squeeze out inflation. That almost destroyed the economy, which began to recover only when it left the arrangement and devalued. Every country must retain the ability to flex its exchange rate to meet the needs of its economy. If we do not do that, the world will suffer. When big economies, such as Germany's, go down, it affects the whole world.
Smaller, weaker economies are joining the European Union and being encouraged to join the euro. Of course, they will accept almost any terms that are offered to them because they are so desperate to join. Portugal's experience is a warning. It is a smaller, relatively poor economy in the European Union that has decided to adopt strict rules on public spending. It is determined to pursue that policy of economic anorexia. The Financial Times recently published an article on it, entitled "Austerity persists as recession bites". The Portuguese Government are determined to stick it out to the bitter end, cutting their economy, deflating and, I believe, travelling to economic oblivion.
At some point, something has to give. These policies could be catastrophic for the European Union unless we allow some flexibility on exchange rates. We cannot, by definition, do that inside the euro. We shall have to look towards a time when we unravel the euro and start again.
I quote again from Professor Nolling:
"Certainly, the more countries that join, the more ungovernable it will become. In that sense, the euro was born to die."
This man is a senior political figure, economist and banker in west Germany, which was the strongest economy in Europe. Simply by joining the euro and adopting the deflationary policies of the eurozone, Germany has put its economic miracle into reverse. We must consider seriously the future of the euro, not just for Britain but for the whole of Europe, and I urge my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary to raise these issues with their colleagues in the European Union.
6 pm
Michael Fabricant: It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins). It is interesting, and quite revealing, that despite the fact that people have spent nine months to a year discussing the Convention on the Future of Europe and have come to conclusions that most hon. Members find abhorrent—apart from the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), who took the view that there was nothing to worry about at all—the Government tell us that there is no problem because it is only a draft Convention and nothing will come of it.
450
We all know better than that, however. As the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) said, both in an intervention and in his excellent speech, there are always compromises when Governments get together. They agree on some things, they disagree on others, and they make compromises. I fear that some of the issues raised in the excellent speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) will have to be accepted by the House because of the very compromises that have been mentioned.
I am not planning to say a great deal about the Convention on the Future of Europe, which has already been covered by many hon. Members. Before I reach the issue that I want to concentrate on, however, I want to say that we have to accept that, in some respects, the European Union has been an agent for good. I believe that the democratic processes that have taken place in Portugal, Spain and Greece came about sooner because of those countries' desire to join the European Union and to enjoy the benefits that membership has given them. I also believe that there has been greater co-operation between the member states of the European Union; that, too, should be applauded.
The Foreign Secretary talked about the absence of war, but I think that he was going a bit too far. I do not believe that an absence of war stems from membership of the European Union, although membership will certainly not have done any harm in that regard. I believe that the absence of war came about as a result of our membership of NATO and of the common threat of the Soviet Union. Most hon. Members feel very strongly that the European Union should do nothing to undermine NATO, yet there is a very real risk of that happening. That must be avoided at all costs, particularly at this time.
I want to move on to a subject that dare not speak its name. The moment anyone raises it in the House, they are accused—especially by the Government, at the moment—of talking about withdrawal. I hope that the Minister will not be tempted to accuse me of that. It is a subject that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor): the cost of the European Union. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) said in his excellent speech that he wanted to remain in the European Union and that he felt strongly that there were benefits to be accrued from membership. The problem is that we do not know how much that amounts to.
At Foreign Office Question Time about a month ago, I asked the Minister for Europe a question, having told him before the sitting what I was going to ask him. He very helpfully answered that no real analysis of the costs or benefits of membership of the European Union had been made since 1997. In fact, the analysis carried out in 1997 was only into the effects on the European Union of its enlargement when the 10 new member states join.
I raised the matter with the Chancellor only last Thursday, and having done more research it seems that neither John Major's Government nor the present Administration did any such analysis. When the Government were elected in 1997, very early on they

451
adopted the shibboleth that the European Union creates 300,000 jobs in this country. I think that the Foreign Secretary cited that figure again today.
Mr. Straw: I never mentioned it.
Michael Fabricant: The figure was certainly cited by the Chancellor, and has been used by Foreign Office Ministers in the past. It is fair enough, but we do not actually know, because no such analysis has been undertaken since at least 1992. I find that very strange indeed. I do not know of any company or individual who would belong to an organisation and not occasionally check what the costs or the benefits are. After all, if I were a member of a club and knew the costs and benefits of membership, it would give me an opportunity to negotiate and get a better deal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East gave us some statistics on the balance of trade, and I have some further statistics, which I obtained from the Library. From about 1998 onwards, the balance of trade deficit in goods and services has fallen in respect of our trade both with the European Union and with the world. It is only with the United States that we have a balance of trade surplus. The figures have risen remorselessly year after year.
Our balance of trade in goods with the world is minus £35 billion, with the EU it is minus almost £10 billion, but we have a surplus with the United States. For goods and services—in other words, the entire balance of trade position—in 2002, the last year for which figures are available, we had a deficit with the world of £18.8 billion and with the European Union of almost £14 billion, but we had a balance of trade surplus with the United States of £13.5 billion. Perhaps those figures give the lie to the notion that we necessarily benefit from EU membership—it might be far worse for us if we were not in the EU, but the point is that we do not know.
According to an analysis undertaken by the US Treasury, the World Trade Organisation gives us access to European markets regardless of whether we are members of the European Union. I have an interesting document produced by the US Treasury about two years ago. It goes into considerable detail about the direct and indirect costs and benefits accruing from our membership of the European Union. Its strange conclusion—it is strange because it runs contrary to everything that we are told—is that the net benefit to the United Kingdom is minus US $40 billion a year. Putting it crudely, that is equivalent to about £500 for every man, woman and child in this country every year, or to almost doubling our state pension overnight.
We know that that cannot be true, because everyone tells us how much we benefit from the European Union. After all, people tell us that we benefit by 300,000 jobs. My simple message and plea to the Minister today is this: I am sure that those figures are wrong; I am sure that we benefit from the European Union—but let us not guess at it. Will the Government conduct their own cost-benefit analysis, publish the methodology and the results, and set out all the direct and indirect benefits and costs that arise from the EU? Only then can we really know the cost or the benefit of our membership.
6.10 pm
Mr. Robert Syms: We have had a good debate, in which several issues have been raised. I am not going to go into the detail of the EU constitution, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) has already eloquently done so. His speech will be widely circulated and read in my constituency.
We do have concerns, because although it is only in draft form, we can see that the constitution is heading towards a federal state with a president, a foreign minister, a legal personality and more qualified majority voting. Attempts were made at the Convention—and attempts may still be made—to circumvent the process whereby the constitution has to come back to national Parliaments for further changes. There are many dangers in what is being proposed. I would feel a little more reassured if Government Front Benchers had been more robust in defence of our national interests.
I am concerned when I hear a Minister who is negotiating our position describe what is happening as a minor tidying-up exercise, and I believe that my constituents and the people of this country will be horrified when they see the implementation of the changes, particularly in the sphere of criminal justice, policing, asylum and immigration. It will come as a shock to many people when they see what eventually emerges.
The point of the Laeken declaration and of setting up the Convention was to bring Europe closer to the people. One way of achieving that is to consult people far more widely on whether they approve of the changes. If the Government are convinced that the new constitution is the right way for Britain and Europe, why not trust the people to take the decision on the choices available?
The Government have used referendums widely. We have had referendums to decide whether Hartlepool or North Tyneside should have a mayor, and whether London should have a Mayor. Amendments tabled in the other place to the Water Bill may lead to referendums to decide whether certain areas of the country have fluoride in their water. Many of my constituents write to express their concern about fluoride, and I am not opposed to having referendums on that matter. However, it is a strange world in which we are happy to consult people on such issues, but not on what could well set the course of the nation for many years to come. The Government should consider having a referendum on this important subject, and trust the people to make the choice.
As the debate has already shown, one of the main reasons why the Government are adamantly against a referendum is that, when the last Conservative Government announced that they would accept a referendum on the euro, the Labour party, then in opposition, felt that it should adopt the same policies in preparation for the election of 1997. If the Government mean what they say and wish to join the euro, they have been stopped for one simple reason. They have undertaken to consult the people, but it is evident from polls, or even from talking to people at bus stops, that the euro is not, at this time, an issue that is likely to secure the consent of the British people. That has become a block on Government policy.

453
In the circles in which the Minister for Europe moves, I can envisage people saying to him, "If we concede a referendum, there will be a great danger of the Government's policy being blocked." The Government should reconsider their position. If they really have confidence in it, they should be prepared to argue the case on the streets, in the town halls and in the villages of our nation to convince people about the right way to go.
We have heard in the debate that this is only a draft constitution, that it is early days yet, and that it is not all done and dusted. Much of that argument has come from the Government side, yet Labour Members supported referendums on devolution for Scotland and Wales even before legislation was introduced, and even before the long detailed debates had been conducted. Therefore, they should make a commitment to have a referendum now. Even if changes are made—I hope that they are—at the final IGC, the Government should have the confidence to let the British people make the decision. If they adopted that policy, it would certainly strengthen the hand of the British negotiators at the IGC.
Mr. Tom Harris: If the hon. Gentleman decided that the final version of the constitution would not in fact make any major constitutional changes to the way in which Britain is governed, would he say that we no longer needed a referendum? Or does he believe that we should have a referendum whatever the constitution says?
Mr. Syms: The final shape of the constitution is already clear from the draft documents that have been produced. I hope that the Government will stand up for British interests and gut much of what is proposed. If that happened, I would be happy to say that we would not need a referendum—but nothing I have heard from Ministers suggests that it is likely to happen.
Mr. Hopkins: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the likelihood of a referendum would change the nature of the proposals? That would be a benefit, because the proposals would then have to be in line with what was likely to be acceptable to the people.
Mr. Syms: That is right, but the Government have an alternative. If a general election were held before the constitution was ratified, they could put it in their manifesto and run for election on it. Over the years, Governments have signed up to European treaties. Indeed, Labour Members have criticised Conservative Governments for ratifying treaties without referendums. However, Maastricht was in the Conservative manifesto that was put before the people. The waters are muddied, because people vote on many other issues, but ratification could be justified because it had appeared in an election manifesto as one of the issues on which the Government went to the country.
As many of my hon. Friends have pointed out, the Convention was not in the Labour manifesto in 2001. I do not suggest that the Government's majority would have been much lower had it been there, but it would have provided a legitimacy for the Government's decision not to consult the British people on the issue. They could claim that people had already taken it into account when they voted.
Mr. Jim Marshall: The hon. Gentleman advances a dangerous argument. He mentioned Maastricht and
454
1992. Is he claiming that the Conservative Members who harassed the Major Government about the Maastricht treaty were ignoring the wishes of the British electorate?
Mr. Syms: That was clearly in the Conservative manifesto, although I am sure that individual Members put their views in their election addresses and had to decide on their actions accordingly. The essential element of this issue is the euro, and we have a pledge of a referendum on that point. Many of the ambitions that people had for Maastricht have not been fulfilled, simply because it has not got us into the single currency. A referendum is the right option, if the Government have confidence in their position and their negotiating skills at the IGC. The British people should have their say.
We have had some interesting contributions on the euro. We can see from what is happening in Europe at present that a single currency and a single interest rate cause significant problems, especially for Germany, which has 5 million unemployed. When I was growing up, it would have been incredible if Britain's employment record had been significantly better than Germany's.
Part of the problem is the inflexibility of the single currency. We have had much discussion of convergence and the right rate for entry, but economies change. The rate may be right when one joins, but economic circumstances can change substantially, and it can become the wrong rate. Fixing one aspect of economic life throws other aspects out of kilter. I have always believed that when we are faced with deprivation, unemployment and difficulty, our national Government can at least deal with problems related to currency and interest rate policy. In contrast, an insulated central bank that cannot be lobbied will cause great difficulties.
6.20 pm
Angela Watkinson: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, and to follow some distinguished speakers on both sides of the House, all of whom have expressed sincerely held views. The relationship between the UK and Europe, and the direction in which it develops, are of profound importance to the future of our country. It is worth mentioning the differences between Europe the continent, the European Union, which is the alliance of 15 different countries, and the euro, which is the single currency. They are all distinct and separate in our minds, but not always in the minds of the general public.
First, I shall try to dispel the myth that I—or any other Eurosceptic—must be somehow anti-Europe. The two qualities are very different. Europe is the name given to a group of countries that are geographical neighbours. One cannot be against Europe any more than one can be against Australia, Africa or any other continent. Most of us visit countries in Europe regularly, for holidays or, in my case, to visit my family in Sweden, which I do regularly. We all enjoy the variety of cultural and culinary treats that Europe has to offer. They include the horses on the Camargue, the Vatican City, the Vasa museum, Roquefort cheese and champagne, gnocchi and baklava—the list is endless. Let us therefore hear no more about anyone who happens to be Eurosceptic being anti-Europe, because the phrase is meaningless.

455
This country's entry into the single currency depends, according to the Chancellor, on his five so-called economic tests. The Chancellor says that if those tests are complied with, it would be in our best interests to join. That is not so—absolutely not so. The economic argument is only one facet of a whole spectrum of aspects to consider in making that momentous move. The decision is a political one. It would be an irrevocable step towards membership of a European superstate—the ever closer union that is openly talked about in all the other member states. For some reason, however, a pretence is maintained in this country that the decision is merely economic.
Joining the eurozone would mean that Britain would sign up to common policies that are set for all member countries. Given those countries' widely differing circumstances, those common policies could not possibly be right for all of them. For the lucky ones, it would be a case of one size fits one or two, some of the time; in contrast, the unlucky countries would have no power to do anything about the policies imposed on them. Moreover, who would be making the decisions that would affect the lives of everyone in this country? The answer is bureaucrats in another country, for whom nobody here had ever voted, and whom nobody could dismiss from office.
Britain is a successful country. We attract more inward investment than the rest of the EU. There is no groundswell of demand from the electorate to hand over control of our economy—and much, much more—to Europe. There is no need to join the single currency, there is no justification for joining, and we should not join.
At least we have been promised a referendum on joining the common currency, and the electorate will have the opportunity to make its views known. There is, of course, an incipient problem attached to that. The Government have already made up their mind. They think that they know what is best for us. The yes campaign will be generously tax-funded. People will be bombarded with television adverts and literature that they have paid for themselves, persuading them to give up the pound and the independence of their Government, just so that they do not have to bother changing their currency when they go on holiday.
However, the British people are not so shallow or short-sighted. They will not agree to surrender the sovereignty of their country. That explains the delay in holding the referendum, as the Prime Minister knows that he will lose. How many people realise that England's name has not featured on the map of Europe for several years? England is sub-divided, rather prematurely and optimistically, into regions, ready for the long-term objective of absorption into a new country called Europe.
Just as we thought that matters could not get worse, along came the constitution—a constitution that, according to the Government, has no constitutional implications. It is designed to establish a fully fledged political state. That is the "tidying-up exercise" to which the Government intend to commit us without so much as a by your leave.
456
Of the European constitution, in the Labour party election manifesto, mention was there none. My right hon. Friends the Members for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) have, at a much higher academic level than I can even attempt, made forensic analyses of the draft provisions of the constitution. We must have another look at what the Government intend to sign us up to. Existing European treaties will be repealed, and the new Union—not the one that the 10 candidate countries have applied to join—will have its own legal personality and extensive new legal powers.
The constitution and Union law
"shall have primacy over the law of the Member States."
Europe will have exclusive competence—for competence, read power—over policies such as trade and commerce, the free movement of people and negotiation of international agreements. There will be shared competences, for which we are supposed to be grateful, in other areas, including the internal market, agriculture, fisheries, energy, social policy, environment, public health, consumer protection and freedom, security and justice. What could be more important than those areas?
We should note the weasel words, mentioned by other speakers, which say:
"The Member States shall exercise their competences"
only if, and
"to the extent that the Union has not exercised ….its".
On, for example, criminal justice—a topical subject if ever there was one—Europe will be able to tell Parliament what is or is not an offence in our own country. The constitution allows for the creation of a European public prosecutor's office, and for making a European Court the final arbiter overseeing British law. Europe will pass a series of laws over visas, border controls and asylum.
Brussels will be in charge of our economic policy. Under the constitution, it will have major influence over our public spending and borrowing, even if we do not join the euro.
Mr. David Drew: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Angela Watkinson: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I will not, because I am short of time.
The constitution provides a way for Brussels to get round our veto on taxation decisions by qualified majority voting on "administrative co-operation"—interpret those words as you will. Employment and social policy will be dictated, so that our advantage in having a flexible labour market will be lost. European terms and conditions of employment could damage British businesses.
There will be common foreign and defence policies, and we will have to rely on the EU to guarantee our security. In fact, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham said, there will be little scope for this Parliament ever to make any decisions at all. The authority to run our country will have been given away, without the consent of the general public and without so much as a whiff of the cost-benefit analysis to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) referred.

457
Oh yes, there is another small matter—the vote demanded in a referendum on the constitution arranged by the Daily Mail, which the Prime Minister has signalled he intends to ignore, but in which 1.5 million people took part. I know that that has no legal status, but one cannot ignore 1.5 million people, 97 per cent. of whom said that they wanted a referendum.
The Prime Minister has no mandate to sign us up to the constitution. This treaty is of even greater significance than the euro. It will change this country fundamentally. It will sweep away democracy as we know it, replacing our Government with an unelected judiciary answerable to no one. We have been promised a referendum on the euro. The people now demand one on the constitution.
There is a different way forward. It is the better way forward for those of us who love our country, support the monarchy, and cherish our long history on which our traditions have been built. We could be part of a Europe of democracies—an enlarged, flexible, cooperating European partnership of independent, self-governing, free trading, good neighbours, lightly regulated, decentralised and outward-looking to take advantage of global opportunities—and the massive savings from our contribution to the current-style Union could be spent at home.
6.30 pm
Mr. Richard Spring: We certainly have had a fine debate with some excellent speeches. We heard a variety of views that all reflected a common sense of concern about where this is all leading us. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) has just arrived and I pay tribute to her. She has done a lot of work that we value on the role of national Parliaments. I think that we can all draw some encouragement from what the Foreign Secretary said this afternoon about turning her yellow cards into red cards. We need to explore that and I hope that the Government will do so assertively in the coming months. We shall certainly support them if they do that in a way that really returns powers to national Parliaments.
That echoes the argument of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who said yes to subsidiarity, but posed the question of how we effect it. It is an essential point. We have put forward plans to do it. Unless we assert subsidiarity, instead of just talking about it, the disconnection between the peoples of Europe and its institutions will only grow.
We heard an excellent speech from the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall). Among other things, he touched on how important it is that NATO and the transatlantic relationship are maintained and nurtured in these difficult times.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) made an outstanding speech. He said that the constitution has been set in stone, which is correct: it is obvious what it will be. He also talked about the so-called escalator clause, which would again diminish the role of our national Parliament. He mentioned the European Union legal personality, with the impact that its security, defence and policing policies would have—all important areas. I entirely agree with
458
him about the rotating presidency. It is hugely important that the smaller countries feel part of this and that the permanent presidency is not some stitch-up by the larger countries for some former Prime Minister or President.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) talked about the role that the European Court of Justice will play in foreign affairs as well as that of the proposed minister for foreign affairs and the impact on diminishing national Parliaments.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) said that one of the difficulties with the attitude of the British people towards the European Union is that there has been no sense of finality; I absolutely agree. As people do not know where the process will end and there has been a ratchet effect over the years, of course there has been a suspension of belief in what politicians are saying. Where it will end must be defined.
The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) talked about the euro. He warned of the dangers and cited the problems in Germany. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) very tellingly took up that point. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) talked of the cost of the European Union and the need for us to appraise objectively trade flows, the net costs and the benefits to the United Kingdom.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) said that Laeken would bring the institutions of the European Union closer to the people. I do not believe that that has happened.
In his speech, "A Blueprint for the New Europe", which I believe the Foreign Secretary gave yesterday, he talked about the final draft treaty that emerges from the intergovernmental conference and said that it would be judged against a number of standards. He asked
"first, and above all, will the draft provide the institutional blueprint the Union needs to make EU enlargement work?"
I accept that that is a necessity. He also said that clarity should be introduced so that people have a better understanding of the European Union, about which I agree. It was telling, however, that probably the single most important thing that was left out of the checklist was returning a sense of ownership of the European Union and its institutions to the peoples of Europe. That must be at the heart of all the arrangements that he talked about. What has emerged out of the Convention, and what is most likely to emerge from the intergovernmental conference, does not satisfactorily address that point.
I pay tribute to the UK members of the Convention, particularly the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells. In the context of my comments, however, it is worth noting the observation of Lord Tomlinson, who said:
"I am also critical of the fact that the Convention gold-plated its mandate. Nothing in the Laeken mandate told the Convention that it had to draw up a constitutional treaty."
Last week, the Foreign Secretary told us that what is likely to emerge at the intergovernmental conference, based on the Convention's proposals, will not alter the fundamental constitutional balance between the European Union's institutions and the member nation

459
states. He echoed implicitly the view of the Leader of the House that it had all been a tidying-up exercise. That very afternoon, in the Palace of Westminster, the two former Ministers for Europe hosted a celebration party for the accession countries. It was attended by distinguished representatives of our EU partner countries and accession states, with whom I discussed the view of the Foreign Secretary that the Maastricht treaty and the Single European Act were far more important constitutionally than the tidying-up exercise that we are now facing. Their reactions ranged from disbelief to the utterly unprintable.
On Friday last week, two days after the debate, the German Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, whom we are told is a strong candidate to be the first European foreign minister, declared that it is
"the most important treaty since the formation of the European Economic Community".
I certainly know whom to believe. My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and I meet dozens of politicians and political commentators from our EU partner countries, and let me tell Ministers that not one shares the view of the Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the House about the Convention and its constitutional importance.
That leads me to the point made explicitly in the House last week by my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples): successive Governments have sought to put a gloss on developments in the EU and have all too often been in denial of the reality of unfolding events and policies. Whatever one's view of the EU, that is a simple truth, which was a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor).
Let us look at the Government's performance in its dealings with the EU. Before Nice, a view had been expressed that the accession process could be simple, but in the event we had a major treaty. We were told that there was no need for substantial extensions of QMV, but that happened at Nice, and then we had the proclamation of the charter of fundamental rights. We had understood that the Government did not even favour a Convention. They started off being opposed to a written constitution—certainly one that included the charter of fundamental rights—but, typically, they changed their mind, being carried along in the slipstream by others.
The simple truth is that in the build-up to the enlargement, our Government, unlike other Governments, never set out a clear view of what the European Union's architecture should look like. I very much agree with the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife that we should have a White Paper setting out the implications of the proposed changes in the constitutional relationships within the European Union. We have had speeches from the Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the House correctly analysing the disconnection between the peoples of Europe and EU institutions, and endlessly talking about how elites were running the show, but never producing policies to address those challenges. The only major policy commitment that we have ever heard from the
460
Government was the truly fatuous idea, proposed by the Prime Minister, that there should be a second chamber of the European Parliament.
When the charter of fundamental rights was being proclaimed at Nice we were told that it had no significance whatever, yet, even then, the European Commission told us:
"It can reasonably be expected that the Charter will become mandatory through the Court's interpretation of it as belonging to the general principles of Community law."
Indeed, it has already been invoked in court cases. The idea that the charter has no application in British law and no impact on our country is palpable and misleading nonsense.
The Commission stated that the charter would mark
"a turning-point in the integration of Europe, moving it away from the essentially economic logic of its origins to becoming a real political Union".
The incorporation of the charter is part of the European Court of Justice's jurisprudence; it affects the Court's judgments and will form part of European law. The idea that it will not apply to us is ridiculous. We shall increasingly have judge-led law in this country, and there is nothing that the British people dislike more than judge-led law over which they can have no control.
We have heard about the reform of the common agricultural policy. The reform process was hijacked from under the very nose of the Government—it was breathtaking. For all the Government's talk about their influence in Europe, the whole reform process of the CAP has been moved away from them by the French and the Germans, greatly to the disadvantage of the whole enlargement process. It is a matter of great regret that the Government had so little influence in that debate.
As we have heard, Laeken was supposed to bring European citizens closer to European institutions, but the march of centralisation and harmonisation has continued. The ratchet process has proceeded unimpeded.
In the Chamber, we heard the Foreign Secretary admit that he was wrong about the greatest geopolitical challenge in the latter half of the 20th century—how to face up to the challenge of totalitarianism in Europe. I respect him for his honesty. However, once again, the Labour party has characteristically made a fundamental misjudgment.
Mr. Straw: Will the hon. Gentleman explain when I said what he has just referred to?
Mr. Spring: I should be happy to supply the right hon. Gentleman with the Hansard reference. I remember the occasion well; it was when he accepted that his view on unilateral disarmament had been wrong in a particular judgment. We all thought that it was impressive for him to have owned up to that—[Interruption.] Fine, I am glad that he accepts that.
The EU evolved from a wholly legitimate desire to bring peace and stability to our continent, and it succeeded admirably. Unfortunately, the bloc mentality that informed the thinking of many post-war European politicians is completely frozen in time; it is irrelevant to the needs of a modern, functioning, successful European

461
Community of 25 nations. The interventionist and dirigiste mentality that would centralise and harmonise the functioning of the member states is wholly unsuited to the world in which we live.
Our European demography, our lack of competitiveness and our inability to create employment are problems that require flexibility and competitive tax structures, not a political structure that incorporates a job-destroying social agenda. That is the product of ossified thinking that has no relevance in the 21st century, but it will be enforced and put into effect by judges, constitutions and charters.
All those matters should be challenged and addressed by the Government at the meeting in Thessaloniki, but I very much doubt that that will happen, judged on the Government's performance in their relations with the EU since they took office. I passionately want the EU to work, but it will not do so unless and until we return a sense of ownership to the people of Europe. The way to do that, at this hugely important moment in the history of the EU, is to listen to the voice of the people and to offer them a referendum.
6.44 pm
The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): We have had a good debate—about the third or fourth in this Chamber or Westminster Hall almost entirely devoted to the Convention, and there will be another such full-scale debate before the House rises for the summer recess. I hope that hon. Members will then take away the draft constitution and read it carefully, day after day, on the beaches, whether they are in Europe, Britain or further afield.
We all know and like the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), who speaks on Europe for the Opposition. He is terrific fun to be with, but when he starts to talk about Europe, I am reminded of the ranting Trotskyists whom I used to listen to at trade union conferences 25 years ago. That is the problem. There is a kind of Tory-Trotskyist mentality on Europe. He does not want a referendum to consult the people; he wants a referendum simply to say no to Europe. That is the Conservative party's policy.
I had hoped that the debate would be about the Council, for which the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and myself will leave tomorrow. What are the issues there? One of the more important issues that we will discuss is the remarkable vote in favour of Europe by all our allies and friends in eastern and central Europe. They are saying yes to Europe, as the Czechs did on Friday and Saturday and as the Poles did two weeks before.
Have we had a word of welcome today for those new members? We have not. All I hear when I meet representatives of the Conservative, Christian Democrat and other right-wing parties in government or opposition anywhere in the existing Union of 15 states is, "What is wrong with Britain's Conservative party?" or "Why are they so fanatically anti-European?", and they read the literature like anyone else.
Last week, in the House, I drew attention to the views of the Conservative MEP, Mr. Roger Helmer, who stated in his newsletter:
462
"It is not yet party policy to withdraw from the EU. But it is, perhaps, an idea whose time is coming".
I find that, not so long ago, the same Mr. Helmer said:
"EU membership is the greatest threat to Britain's prosperity, democracy and security."
Speaking for the Conservative party in the European Parliament, not disowned by anyone, he said:
"The great task of our generation is European deconstruction."
That is what the Government have to deal with—not a reasoned, rational debate about Europe, but the obsession with saying no to Europe and with premature withdrawal. Some Conservatives would like to negotiate a withdrawal; others would like to withdraw after a referendum, but there is a constant message.
Mr. Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. MacShane: I shall address some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman made, and I shall give way to him then.
There is an obsession with withdrawal. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) states in his latest pamphlet that it would be possible to stop the constitution coming into place. Of course, that would effectively make enlargement unworkable. He said:
"In practice, if a country voted no to the Constitution, the matter would eventually have to be resolved politically. The state concerned would probably allow the others to go ahead, having negotiated an associate membership of some kind, from a position of some strength."
That is the Conservative party's policy.
In 1996, the leader of the Conservative party expressed that view when he sought leave
"to bring in a Bill to amend the European Communities Act 1972 so as to provide by Order in Council for the disapplication within the United Kingdom of judgments, rules and doctrines propounded by the European Court."—[Official Report, 23 April 1996; Vol. 276, c. 198.]
So that is it: an end to the Common Market, an end to the single market, an end to the free trade area and an end to the powers handled through the EU to make such things work, which have to be enforced and have been enforced since 1957 by the European Court of Justice.
We can see such views again on the Order Paper in early-day motion 1355, entitled "Euro Poll". Do the hon. Members who tabled it demand a referendum to consult the British people? No. That early-day motion says:
"The UK should never join the euro; welcomes this view; and calls on the Government to … rule out the euro in the foreseeable future."
In other words, the early-day motion does not demand a referendum, it simply says no to Europe.
Mr. Spring rose—
Mr. MacShane: I shall finish this point before I give way.
We have seen the extraordinary sight—a collectors' item—of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who is a member of the hard core of anti-European fanatics with the hon.

463
Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) and the leader of the Conservative party, being interviewed on Sky Television by Adam Boulton. Boulton did a Paxman on the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He asked him six times whether he would accept the result of a referendum on the euro if the result were yes. The right hon. and learned Gentleman could not bring himself to accept that. He refused to answer the question, just as he refused to answer Jeremy Paxman's question during that wonderful moment that we all enjoyed on "Newsnight" a few years ago.
The fundamental point with which we must deal and which the British people must understand is that the Conservative party is opposed to Europe. It wants to withdraw from Europe and to renegotiate our position in Europe. It is right that the British people should understand that.
Mr. Spring rose—
Mr. Redwood rose—
Mr. MacShane: I shall give way to my opposite number first.
Mr. Spring: The Minister is halfway through his speech, so I was wondering when he will turn to the subject at hand: what the British Government's policy will be to serve our national self-interest at the European Council meeting.
Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members could have addressed the current issues facing the European Union and the agenda at the European Council, but instead they repeated Daily Mail editorials in favour of isolating us from Europe.
Mr. Redwood rose—
Mr. MacShane: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment.
Mr. Jim Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you remind my hon. Friend the Minister that if he reads the Order Paper, he will note that the motion makes specific reference to the European Scrutiny Committee's report on the Convention, which means that none of the contributions were out of order?
Mr. MacShane rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I have to deal with a point of order. The Minister will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said, and I do not think that it was a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. MacShane: The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) asserted that the proposed constitutional treaty would lead to the creation of a European federal superstate. He could not make that speech in Paris and
464
tell President Chirac that he is about to sign away the sovereignty of France to a federal superstate. He could not make that speech seriously in any other capital.
Mr. Cash: Vichy.
Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman refers to Vichy. We can see the real nature of the Conservative party on the Opposition Benches: anti-French, anti-European and unpleasant about everyone with whom we must deal as our partners. I am sure that those remarks will be well noted in Paris and well noted by the conservative parties of France.
Mr. Redwood rose—
Mr. MacShane: I promised the right hon. Gentleman that I would give way and I always keep my promises.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) cited a wonderful quote from Mr. Amato, who said that the constitutional conventioneers wanted a boy and ended up with a girl. [Laughter.] I believe that I am quoting my hon. Friend correctly. As the father of four daughters, I find that comment wonderfully encouraging but, of course, our party has allowed women to have some place—although not enough—on the Benches of the House. When the Conservative party reflects the population of the country, it might actually come forward with some serious points.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) talked about the necessity of reforming the common agricultural policy, and I agree with him. We need to take forward that argument, but not to the British people—we are all agreed. The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) referred to my noble Friend Baroness Amos and her denunciation of the CAP. We need to have the argument in French, Italian, German and Spanish. I invite the Opposition to play the European game seriously and talk to their opposite numbers on the continent if they want to change the CAP, but they are so isolated from them—perhaps because they have no opposite numbers—that they cannot do that.
Mr. Redwood: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. MacShane: I am about to deal with the right hon. Gentleman's point. In the press release that he distributed and in his speech he referred, I think, to a revolutionary and dangerous new point in the constitutional treaty and set out what the constitutional treaty was putting before the people of Europe. His press release states:
"Member states shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the acts adopted to the Union in this area."
It then goes into capital letters—we all know what it is like to get letters from our constituents that have been typed in capitals—to say:
"THEY SHALL REFRAIN FROM ACTION CONTRARY TO THE UNION'S INTEREST OR LIKELY TO IMPAIR ITS EFFECTIVENESS."

465
The revolutionary new language which the right hon. Gentleman said would be imposed on the British people by a secret veto comes from existing Union treaties signed by the Government of whom he was a member. It is the same old language in existing treaties and the same old anti-EU speech from the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Redwood: The whole point is that that policy would then be justiciable under the European Court of Justice. I said that in relation to the wide-ranging aims of the new document, which is revolutionary. Will the Minister stop this travesty and understand that the Conservatives want to negotiate a much better deal for the British people? What is he going to negotiate out of this document so that we still have a country left to govern?
Mr. MacShane: It is exactly that sort of language that makes the case for those of us who want to stay in the EU. The right hon. Gentleman will know as well as I do that the common foreign and security policy is explicitly excluded, even in the existing draft constitution, from the Court's remit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) asked whether the language referring to ever-closer union would be in the constitutional treaty. I am happy to tell him that it will not. Instead, language is used that refers to Europe in the context of helping
"the weakest and most deprived; that it wishes to remain a continent open to culture, learning and social progress; and that it wishes to deepen the democratic nature of its public life, and to strive for peace, justice and solidarity throughout the world".
466
Peace, justice and solidarity are not concepts that Conservative Members usually support. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that we want such language not just for our EU, but for the new neighbours that want to join it.
Mr. Davidson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. MacShane: I am afraid that I cannot. There will be another long debate on the Convention and we can exchange views then.
I agree with the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant). It is important to get his comment on the record because he is a Conservative Member. He said that the EU is an agent for good. Let it be quoted from Hansard that at least one Conservative MP said that.
The question again and again was whether the British people will have a say. Yes, they will have a vote. They will have a veto. They will vote at the next general election on whether they support a party or parties that believe in British membership of the EU or whether they support the Conservative party. As we heard today, the Conservative party is not only opposed to Europe—it does not even make cheap remarks about France—but calls for a renegotiation that will mean withdrawal from Europe. As long as this Government are in office we will speak up for Britain in Europe. The British people will vote for the party that says yes to Europe. They will vote no to the party that wants us out of Europe and express their veto that way.
Derek Twigg: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

FINANCE AND SERVICES COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That Keith Hill be discharged from the Finance and Services Committee and Mr Bob Ainsworth be added.—[Derek Twigg.]

PETITION

  Cliffe Airport
  7 pm
  Bob Spink: With the consultation period on the future development of air transport in the south-east coming to an end in a couple of weeks on 30 June, it is appropriate that I present a petition against the Government's inappropriate proposal to build an airport at Cliffe, which is just across the Thames from Canvey Island and the rest of my constituency. The good people of Castle Point are deeply afraid of the damage that that proposal would do to them, so they have raised a petition in the following terms:
  To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled:
  The Humble Petition of concerned residents of South East Essex and surrounding areas, including Kate Mariapa, Cllr Dorothy Best and others sheweth
  The Government's Cliffe Airport option, with its flight path over South Essex, operational 24 hours a day, would cause unacceptable damage to people's quality of life and to the environment.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Government to rescind its Cliffe Airport option at the earliest possible moment.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

Kittle Post Office
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]
7.1 pm
Mr. Martin Caton: I cannot remember how many times I have sat in the Chamber and heard hon. Members from all political parties and from all parts of the United Kingdom pay tribute to the central role that the local post office plays in our communities, particularly our rural communities. Indeed, I have done so myself before this evening, on more than one occasion.
Whether we are talking about the contribution of specific post offices in our constituencies or, more generally, about the role of the wider post office network, there is a consensus across the House that British post offices are vital facilities, especially to many of our most vulnerable citizens, and that they need defending and developing. In recent years, faced with the prospect of post office closures, the Government and the House have spent a fair amount of time speaking about how we can find new forms of business for our local post offices to help make or keep them viable. Increasingly, we see the provision of banking services spreading through the network, the general practitioner experiment in Leicestershire, which does not seem to have been rolled out yet, rate relief schemes, and even direct financial support.
All those schemes are welcome and represent a clear recognition of the importance of the local post office. It plays a crucial social and economic role, offering 170 different services and products, its existence often making the local shop viable when otherwise it would not be. Sub-post masters and their post offices also play an invaluable part in many communities by providing support for vulnerable residents, including elderly and disabled people. Often, they will interpret official letters, find lost property, take messages and offer emotional as well as practical support. It is such a postmaster and his wife about whom I shall speak briefly this evening, but before doing so, I shall set the situation in the village of Kittle in my constituency in the wider context of the post office network in rural Wales.
I am a member of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, which over recent years has investigated the impact of post office closures on local communities, and in particular what the Post Office was doing to keep local post offices open, or to find replacements when that was not possible. We were assured that Post Office Ltd. would do all it reasonably could to avoid the closure of post office branches in rural areas. We were also told about the consultation procedure agreed between Post Office Ltd. and the Consumer Council for Postal Services, Postwatch, which gave the strong impression that the Post Office was willing to listen to and respond positively wherever possible to the concerns of local communities. In the case that I am about to describe, I believe that Post Office management at regional level and possibly higher has not done all it reasonably can to avoid a closure, and it has failed to respond positively to the views of its customers in Kittle and the surrounding area.
John Mizen and his wife Lynda took over Kittle post office in February 2000. In doing so, they signed a contract that required them to keep the post office open

469
between 9 am and 5.30 pm. They do not dispute that. They signed the contract in the expectation and hope that they would be able to manage under such a regime. However, as they set themselves to providing the service to their customers and building a very good reputation for the quality of that service, they found the requirement to keep the post office open without a lunch break burdensome and that it even impacted on their health and well-being.
In July last year, the Mizens therefore contacted the local Post Office management to request that their contract be reconsidered. They were informed of the procedure that they should follow. Essentially, it consisted of auditing the customer services that they provided between 1 o'clock and 2 o'clock over a month and consulting their customers about the possibility of the post office being closed at that time. They did that and submitted the results, which showed very low demand, to Post Office Ltd. in Bridgend with a request for a variation of contract hours, as is allowed for in Post Office rules.
The Mizens made that submission last September, with a request that the new hours, with lunchtime closure, should begin in the new year on 3 January 2003. They were confident that they would be granted the variation that they requested. However, even by mid-January, they had heard nothing in response, so they contacted the Post Office management saying that, as they had heard nothing, they presumed that their request had been agreed to and would therefore begin the new hours in the following month, February. They were told that they could not do that and that management would have to conduct its own review. No explanation was given as to why such a review had not been carried out between September, when the submission was made, and January, when the proposed changes would have started. Following the management review, they were told that they could not shut the post office for lunch in any circumstances. No reasons or details of the review findings were provided.
That has been one of the most worrying aspects of this whole sorry episode. Post Office management has failed to engage with Mr. and Mrs. Mizen in any meaningful way. In my view, that is a failure by the management properly to carry out its duty to manage positively. No wonder that Mr. and Mrs. Mizen were now at the end of their tether and deeply frustrated. They decided to close the post office for lunch periods anyway from 3 February. On 14 February, they were warned that, if they continued to close for lunch, they would be in breach of their contract, which could put it at risk. Still no rationale was provided and no offer was made to discuss the situation, let alone negotiate a way forward. The same was true on 11 March, when management was again pressed to reconsider the matter. There was still no real and meaningful communication about the central issue.
On 7 April, Mr. and Mrs. Mizen were given notice because they were not in compliance with their contract. However, Post Office Ltd. has, to date, failed to find anyone else in the village to run the post office. That means that it plans to close the branch that the Mizens run on 7 July without an alternative in the village. It says that the post office will be closed temporarily, while it finds a new sub-postmaster, but the head of the area
470
community network for the post office appears to have set her mind against allowing Mr. Mizen to be considered for any new contract.
The situation in which my constituents in Kittle find themselves is as follows. First, they were asked whether they minded the post office closing for a lunch break and they said "No problem." Notwithstanding that, Post Office management, confident that it knows what is best for them, and after messing the Mizens about for several months, said that the post office must stay open for that lunchtime period. As the Mizens did not go along with that, they were given notice to quit and the post office will close in about three weeks if nothing is done. So, to keep a post office open during the lunch period when its customers do not want to use it, Post Office management is prepared to withdraw all post office services from those customers for an indefinite period. I have to say that the logic defies me.
Having received dozens of letters from people in Kittle and post office customers from neighbouring villages, I have tried to explore management's thinking. I have exchanged letters with the head of the area community network. Her position, as I understand it, is as follows:
"This is about a serious and wilful breach of contract, the consequences of which were clearly explained to Mr. Mizen on several occasions."
In response to the question whether the contract is right for this post office, when the customers have made their views so clear, she informs me:
"It is the responsibility of Post Office Ltd line management to determine the service criteria. This is largely dependent on the amount of work conducted at the office which then reflects the type of contract that is applicable."
In this case, Kittle post office is appropriate for a scale payment office contract and the standard contract hours for service are Monday to Friday, 9 am to 5.30 pm. I honestly believe that the Post Office needs to find a way of introducing the views of its customers into its contract letting and variation procedures. It must be prepared to show far more flexibility if it is to attract and keep good sub-postmasters. That seems to be what those at the top of the organisation want as well.
I asked regional management how many complaints it had received when Mr. Mizen closed for lunch. The answer was none. Let us contrast that with the hundreds of letters received, and the 700 signatures on a petition calling for Mr. Mizen to be allowed to close for lunch.
I think that a central problem in what is now an open dispute is a practical problem. The head of the post office community network in Wales does not accept Mr. Mizen's claim that he cannot have a lunch break if the post office remains open. She says
"he has reportedly five members of staff—surely someone could cover for his absence."
On the surface that seems reasonable, but three of Mr. Mizen's staff are in full-time education and therefore work very few hours. They never work at lunchtime. The other two are good shop workers, but are not interested in learning to do the post office work. Mrs. Mizen has other work to do, as well as family commitments.
Even if a trained post office worker was available, the need to keep two people covering such a quiet period—one dealing with the post office, the other on a shop

471
till—would not stack up economically, and the business cannot sustain it. In practice, Mr. Mizen loses his lunch break—with health and welfare consequences—if he complies with his contract.
I fear that some clues may be provided to the depth of consideration given to the issue by management in a letter that I, along with other interested parties, have been sent by management. The letter, headed "Important Information—Temporary Closure" states
"Kittle Branch Post Office will close on 9th July 2003."
In fact, it is to close on 7 July. The letter identifies post offices in neighbouring villages that Kittle customers will be forced to use. Under a "Disabled Access" heading, it states that Bishopston branch has level access. It has no such access. It says that car parking is available outside Murton branch post office. It is not; there is a bus stop. It gives the wrong opening hours for Southgate branch post office. I think that that ignorance of the situation on the ground in those communities in my constituency demonstrates the real problem: a failure to listen to local voices.
I am not asking for a new and irreversible precedent to be set. Last year in Gower, in the village of Three Crosses just a few miles from Kittle, the post office was granted exactly the sort of variation of hours that the Mizens seek. I believe that the avenue we are going down will mean everyone losing out—the Mizens, the post office and, most important of all, the people of Kittle and the surrounding area who use the post office. Of course, the main losers will be the least well off, the least mobile and the least independent.
It seems to me that heels have been dug in rather too deeply, and that the position should be reviewed by Post Office management at a higher level than that at which the decisions have been made so far. I am sure that if that happens common sense can prevail, and the Kittle post office can be maintained as the vital resource that it undoubtedly is.
I have written to the chief executive of Post Office Ltd. requesting a meeting to discuss the situation in Kittle, and an opportunity to present the 700-signature petition collected by the Kittle community in support of the Mizens. I shall be asking him to arrange for the decisions made so far to be re-examined, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell me that he will try to facilitate such a review.
My confidence that if good sense prevails there can be a satisfactory outcome and a secure future for the current Kittle post office has been bolstered by what the chairman of Royal Mail told the conference of the National Federation of SubPostmasters yesterday. In his speech in Scarborough Mr. Leighton outlined plans for post office branches to sell a comprehensive range of financial services in the future, including unsecured personal loans, a Post Office credit card, saving accounts and motor and life insurance. All that will be welcome, as it will increase post offices' income streams.
Mr. Leighton also described plans to give sub-postmasters a greater say in the running of their branches, to provide better incentives for them to make a profit, and to introduce more flexibility to encourage entrepreneurial flair. That too is excellent news. I agree with Mr. Leighton that while the next two years will be challenging, the post office network has a bright future.
472
Let me end by quoting a couple of parts of Mr. Leighton's speech, which I think are relevant to the situation in Kittle. He said
"We are determined to put our Post Office branches on a better financial footing by giving customers the products they want and letting subpostmasters get on with the job of running their branches to suit their customers."
Hear, hear to that. It is what I want, what Mr. Mizen wants and what the people of Kittle want.
Mr. Leighton then went on to say:
"Other changes to make Post Office branches more attractive to customers will include extended or more flexible opening hours, with subpostmasters deciding when their branches should be open to attract most customers."
If the chairman of Royal Mail and his chief executive, David Mills, really believe those words, they need to investigate what has been happening at Kittle and to stop this nonsensical closure going ahead while they do so.
7.15 pm
Mr. Stephen Timms: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) on securing the debate. I agree with much of what he said about the important role of post offices in local communities, both rural and urban. He rightly raised a number of issues of wider interest beyond Kittle about the future of the post office network, but I shall begin by concentrating on the particular post office that he is, understandably, concerned about.
I must make the point, though, that he will be heartened by the general trend in post office closures in Wales. As he knows, we have made a commitment that there should be no avoidable rural closures. Kittle is designated a rural post office. The number of closures in Wales has fallen sharply in the past couple of years. In the year ending March 2000, 31 Welsh post offices closed. In the following year the number was 68. In the year ending March 2002 it was 26; in the year ending March 2003 it was 18. We have made good progress in reducing the number of closures in Wales.
I am worried that my hon. Friend said that inaccurate information was given in the course of the closure process. I was informed that the post office was due to close on 9 July; he told us that the date is actually 7 July. Perhaps more serious are the inaccuracies that he mentioned concerning the status of the alternative post offices that people will have to go to instead.
On the central issue of whether it is right to insist on opening hours that are consistent with the sub-postmaster's contract, I must say that I agree with Post Office Ltd. about that, and I shall explain why. My hon. Friend explained that the background is a disagreement between the sub-postmaster and Post Office Ltd., following a request from the sub-postmaster for a variation in opening hours that would allow him to close the post office counters in his shop for an hour at lunchtime while the retail side of the business remained open. In considering such requests, Post Office Ltd. takes a range of factors into account, including the level of transactions undertaken and the trading hours of other retail outlets in the vicinity. In this case, Post Office Ltd. concluded that the level of business was sufficient to justify a full-time branch. The post office is in a parade of shops that all offer lunchtime opening and

473
attract passing trade. It is on a fairly busy road and is used by holidaymakers travelling through the village. All those factors, combined with the sub-postmaster's intention to keep open the retail side of the business at lunchtime, led to Post Office Ltd. rejecting his request.
My hon. Friend raised several concerns about the lack of contact between the sub-postmaster and Post Office management during that process, and I shall certainly ask my officials to check that serious matter. Whatever the deficiencies in the process, however, the sub-postmaster subsequently advised that notwithstanding his obligations under his contract—my hon. Friend said that that is not in dispute, as it is very clear—he would go ahead and close the branch at lunchtime.
My hon. Friend quoted remarks made yesterday by Allan Leighton at the annual conference of the National Federation of SubPostmasters in Scarborough. The trend needs to be towards longer opening hours for sub-post offices. Of course we can all remember the time, not so long ago, when many businesses shut at lunchtime. However, retail businesses, including banks, which formerly had short opening hours, have increasingly recognised that they need to open for longer hours to fulfil their customers' needs. Post offices can be no exception.
The performance and innovation unit report, which was published in the summer of 2000, looked forward to a much stronger commercial future for sub-post offices and devised the description, "bigger, better, brighter." Longer opening hours play an important part in the way in which post offices better fulfil the needs of their customers, thereby attracting more customers and halting the decline throughout the country.
In the case that my hon. Friend raises, the sub-postmaster was made fully aware of the consequences of his breach of contract. Post Office Ltd. tells me that it was left with no alternative other than to give the sub-postmaster three months' notice of termination in February. Post Office Ltd. has advertised the vacancy and is currently pursuing an application to operate the service from alternative premises. I understand that, at least at this stage, the applicant appears likely to be successful. On 5 June, Post Office Ltd. issued a temporary closure consultation letter because the new branch is unlikely to be operational by 9 July. The Post Office greatly regrets—as I do—the interruption to service provision in Kittle. However, I am advised that it will be temporary and that a new post office should be operational as soon as possible.
It is important to understand the broader context and the way in which the issues relate to aspects of the contractual terms and arrangements between Post Office Ltd. and 17,000 sub-postmasters throughout the country. The Post Office was established as a public corporation in 1969 and it has been successive Governments' policy that decisions about the day-to-day running of postal businesses, such as contractual terms and conditions, are the operational responsibility of the board and management. The Government's role in Post Office matters is confined to broad general policy and overall financial control.
All sub-postmasters and franchisees are appointed under contract as agents to provide services. They are not Post Office employees. As agents, their contractual terms and conditions differ significantly from those of
474
an employee. A sub-postmaster's contract is a commercial arrangement between himself and Post Office Ltd. As a standard condition of the contract, both parties can give three months' notice of termination and neither party is required to give reasons. There is no right of appeal on either side. The contract is designed to be even-handed. Sub-postmasters terminate contracts far more frequently than Post Office Ltd.
Several references have been made to the conference of the National Federation of SubPostmasters, which I addressed on Monday. The federation fully supports the principle that underpins the current arrangements, because if one sub-post office provides a poor service, that strengthens the view that the whole network deals shabbily with its customers. That is an important consideration for the National Federation of SubPostmasters and everybody else who works in the Post Office network. It wants people to perceive the Post Office as a modern organisation that, with other retail organisations, is anxious to fulfil its customers' needs and provide a good service, especially as regards opening hours.
Those arrangements have been in place for a long time. There will occasionally be disputes about the background to a decision by Post Office Ltd. to terminate a contract. That is probably inevitable, given the sheer size of the network and the number of people who work in it. On the whole, however, the arrangements appear to operate satisfactorily, from the perspective of the sub-postmasters and of the company. As I have said, I will investigate my hon. Friend's concerns about what seems to have been rather limited contact in the course of the process that he described.
The Post Office maintains the most extensive retail network in Europe. It has more branches than all the banks and building societies in the UK combined. It is vital for the Government that the network should continue to provide services in every part of the country, as it does at present. Decisions relating to the operational arrangements for the postal businesses, including the contractual terms and arrangements relating to sub-postmasters, certainly need to remain the responsibility of Post Office Ltd., but I am certain that the chairman and chief executive will take note of the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised in this debate.
My hon. Friend mentioned Your Guide—the experimental kiosk-based system in Leicestershire—and made the point that it had not yet been rolled out nationally. The Government contributed £25 million to the Your Guide pilot to test the concept of the "Government general practitioner" role for post offices, in line with the recommendations in the performance and innovation unit's report. The pilot showed that Your Guide would not provide a lifeline for rural post offices, as had been hoped. It was very popular with those who used it—people liked it and the postmasters liked having it—but only a small proportion of postmasters reported that it increased the number of people coming into the post office. I think that about 18 per cent. of the people involved in the pilot said that it had increased numbers.
It was, of course, the intention that it would be possible to attract new customers by offering a new kiosk-based service. That was not the experience of the pilot, however. It was therefore concluded that it would not be good value for money in terms of the public

475
spending that would be involved, given the quite substantial cost that would be associated with rolling out the pilot and establishing a nationwide system of kiosks in post offices.
However, the pilot highlighted a number of areas in which Departments might deliver services in the future, and we are looking at those. A number of parties are also interested in a commercial approach to the provision of kiosks in post offices. A pilot started recently in Penwith, in Cornwall, with some quite ambitious aims. I suspect that in due course, we shall see some of the attractions of the Your Guide pilot being taken forward in different ways for the benefit of post offices in rural areas. We remain absolutely committed to the maintenance of a viable nationwide network of post offices in both rural and urban areas. In particular, we remain committed to ending the avoidable closure of post offices in rural areas, and we have backed that up with a commitment of £450 million over this year, next year and the year after. We have recently received European Commission approval for that spending.
The PIU report set out a vision of a modern network with new business opportunities, and we are committed to implementing its recommendations. The package of support for the rural network, together with the introduction of the banking products to which my hon. Friend referred—which featured in Allan Leighton's speech to the National Federation of SubPostmasters yesterday—give a high degree of confidence that that
476
vision will be achieved. At the conference on Monday, it was announced that Lloyd's TSB was close to enabling its customers to obtain cash from any post office in the country free of charge, by putting their cards into the PIN pads that are now in every branch and receiving cash over the counter. That is already happening for customers of Barclays, and of Alliance and Leicester. Nineteen million accounts with those three institutions will soon be accessible in that way from every post office in the country.
That provides millions of people, for the first time in many cases, with a compelling reason to visit their local post office, and we hope that while they are there they will undertake other transactions as well. That is a valuable commercial opportunity for the post office network. There are also new financial services and products, including personal loans—Allan Leighton referred to those too—that represent an attractive commercial opportunity for the network.
The combination of Government support and the expansion of banking products will help the network to continue to play its vital social role, which, as my hon. Friend said, is essential in rural areas—and, indeed, in urban areas, too. I shall certainly look into what he said about what seems to have been a rather unsatisfactory process leading to the decision in respect of the Kittle post office.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eight o'clock.

Deferred Division

  RACE RELATIONS
  That the draft Race Relations Act 1976 (Seamen Recruited Abroad) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 14th May, be approved.
  The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 16.

  Division No. 241]

  AYES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Ainger, Nick

  Cranston, Ross

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Crausby, David

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bailey, Adrian

  David, Wayne

  Barrett, John

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Beard, Nigel

  Dawson, Hilton

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Benn, Hilary

  Dodds, Nigel

  Bennett, Andrew

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Berry, Roger

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Betts, Clive

  Edwards, Huw

  Blackman, Liz

  Efford, Clive

  Blair, rh Tony

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Farrelly, Paul

  Borrow, David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Flint, Caroline

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Breed, Colin

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Foulkes, rh George

  Burden, Richard

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Burnett, John

  Gapes, Mike (llford S)

  Burnham, Andy

  Gardiner, Barry

  Burnside, David

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Burstow, Paul

  Gidley, Sandra

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Gilroy, Linda

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Goggins, Paul

  Cairns, David

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Grogan, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hain, rh Peter

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Caton, Martin

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Challen, Colin

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hancock, Mike

  Chaytor, David

  Hanson, David

  Chidgey, David

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Harvey, Nick

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Healey, John

  Heath, David

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Heppell, John

  Hermon, Lady

  Clelland, David

  Hesford, Stephen

  Coaker, Vernon

  Heyes, David

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Colman, Tony

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Cotter, Brian

  Holmes, Paul

  478

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Hutton, rh John

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Olner, Bill

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Neill, Martin

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Organ, Diana

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Perham, Linda

  Jenkins, Brian

  Picking, Anne

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pound, Stephen

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Purchase, Ken

  Kidney, David

  Purnell, James

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

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

  Lepper, David

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Rendel, David

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Linton, Martin

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Love, Andrew

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ruane, Chris

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  MacDougall John

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McFall, John

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  McIsaac, Shona

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  McKechin, Ann

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Salter, Martin

  McNulty, Tony

  Sanders, Adrian

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McWalter, Tony

  Sawford, Phil

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sheridan, Jim

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Singh, Marsha

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

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

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Southworth, Helen

  Martlew, Eric

  Squire, Rachel

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Merron, Gillian

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Michael, rh Alun

  Miller, Andrew

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stunell, Andrew

  Moore, Michael

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Moran, Margaret

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Morgan, Julie

  Mountford, Kali

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Mullin, Chris

  Tipping, Paddy

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  479

  Trickett, Jon

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Trimble, rh David

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Willis, Phil

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Woolas, Phil

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Worthington, Tony

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Ward, Claire

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Watts, David

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Wyatt, Derek

  White, Brian

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  480

  NOES

  Barnes, Harry

  Salmond, Alex

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Weir, Michael

  McDonnell, John

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Owen, Albert

  Wishart, Pete

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Preamble
[MR. EDWARD O'HARA in the Chair]

Chechnya
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.]
9.30 am
Mr. Calum MacDonald: The debate on Chechnya is timely. Coming down the Mall this morning I saw what I took to be Russian flags flying, presumably in honour of the visit of President Putin next week. It will be the subject of media comment and attention, much of which will focus on what is reputedly the good working relationship between the Prime Minister and the Russian President. The Prime Minister has worked hard to establish and develop that relationship since Mr. Putin first appeared on the scene, and we salute his foresight and energy in doing so. A good working relationship with the Russian Government is a key goal of British foreign policy. It may be 14 years since the fall of the Berlin wall but we are still living in the shadow of the cold war; Russia is not a normal state. The western world, especially Europe, has an interest in encouraging a stable, co-operative and friendly Russia.
It is therefore in the wider international interest for the Prime Minister to have forged a relationship with President Putin and when we discuss matters such as the sensitive issue of Chechnya, we must bear in mind the importance of encouraging and sustaining the stability of the Russian Federation. However, there comes a point when pursuing that objective can conflict with the difficult and unpleasant reality of what is happening in Chechnya. There is a fine line between observing diplomatic restraint for reasons of realpolitik, and becoming uncomfortably complicit in some seriously brutal and misguided policies that are being pursued by the Russian Government.
I am not saying that we have crossed the line from diplomatic constraint to moral complicity, but we sometimes get too close to it. The Prime Minister's reported comments during his visit to St. Petersburg brought us closer still. We need to back away from that fine line, remind ourselves that a friendly relationship can still be robust and make it crystal clear to the Russian Government that the behaviour of the federal authorities in Chechnya has been, and continues to be, unacceptable.
I want to ask the Minister some questions and the best starting point is the briefing paper produced by the Moscow office of Human Rights Watch, based on some 50 interviews in Chechnya earlier this year. It was submitted to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in April, when the question of whether to pass a resolution on Chechnya was discussed. I pay tribute to the work of Human Rights Watch in monitoring the situation in Chechnya and feeding back information to us, despite great difficulties and the lack of any co-operation from the Russian Government. It is
70WH
particularly useful that Human Rights Watch has established an office in Britain, because we can obtain reports and input as quickly and fully as possible.
The report that was submitted to the UN commission concluded that, depressingly, violations of human rights by federal authorities in Chechnya have been increasing in recent months. Human Rights Watch found that Russian troops were abducting and "disappearing" people at a rate of roughly three per week. In fact, that is an understatement of the number, because Human Rights Watch cannot monitor the total number of people who are being disappeared. As I said, it makes the point that the rate has increased while it has been observing the conflict; the rate is now the highest that it has documented since the beginning of the conflict.
In its report, Human Rights Watch quoted two unpublished but official-looking reports obtained from within the pro-Moscow Chechen Administration, which give an indication of the number of abductions and disappearances. The first report recorded the killing of 1,132 civilians last year, and the second said that in the first two months there were 70 murders, 126 abductions and 25 cases in which human remains were found without explanation. The rate of disappearances and abductions compares to that for the conflict in Algeria at its height. That is truly alarming.
The pattern of human rights abuses also seems to be changing. In the early part of the war, from 1999 onwards, most civilian deaths occurred during large-scale military operations, with the military using excessive force against their Chechen opponents.The bombardment of Grozny was the starkest instance. In the past year, however, the abuses seem to have occurred not so much in military operations, but more often during night raids on Chechen homes. People are taken away and in most cases never seen again. Even the pro-Moscow head of the Chechen Administration has recently accepted that in most such cases of abduction and disappearance, Russian forces are responsible.
A recent report in Le Monde—the Minister is an avid reader of that newspaper—also cited what are claimed to be official reports from within the Chechen Administration. Again, those reports said that more than 1,000 civilians were killed in Chechnya last year. It is important to emphasise that that number of deaths does not include civilians who died through being caught up in what one might call normal fighting between Russian forces and rebels. The Le Monde report also said that the authorities discovered more than 3,000 bodies in mass graves last year.
On 14 May, the Council of Europe published a report on the situation in Chechnya from the secretary-general. He said that the issues identified as the most problematic in safeguarding human rights are
"human rights violations committed by members of the federal forces during special operations and when 'targeting measures' are implemented … the disappearance of persons, especially at night",
and
"the prevailing climate of impunity, resulting from the fact that the responsible persons are not brought to justice".
There is little doubt that there has been systematic abuse of human rights since the start of the current conflict in September 1999, with many civilians being killed, tortured or displaced. Moreover, there are

71WH
indications that, instead of getting better, the situation has deteriorated during the past few months. It was in response to the crisis that the United Nations Commission on Human Rights examined the situation in Chechnya in 2000 and 2001. It passed resolutions to express its concerns and to call on the Russian Government to take a number of specific steps, including establishing an independent commission of inquiry in Russia to investigate human rights violations by both federal authorities and other forces. That has not been done. The resolutions also asked the Russian Government to co-operate with visits to Chechnya by five specific UN rapporteurs, including special rapporteurs on torture and on extra-judicial and arbitrary executions, and to co-operate with representatives on violence against women, internally displaced persons and children caught up in armed conflict.
The commission asked the Russian Government to accept those five experts and to co-operate with its inquiries, but they have responded by trying to block the visits. Towards the end of last year, the Russian Government issued invitations to two of the rapporteurs—those on violence against women, and on children—but they were withdrawn because of what the Russian Government described as an unacceptable security situation in Chechnya. Furthermore, the Russian Government have consistently refused to arrange the requested visits by those who could be considered the two main rapporteurs—those on torture and on executions.
On top of that, at the end of last year the Russian Government took a further step to limit outside monitoring of the situation in Chechnya. They refused to renew the mandate of the existing mission by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in Chechnya, and also denied repeated requests by Human Rights Watch for access to the region. In fact, the only international observers on the ground are three Council of Europe experts, who have to work under the partial supervision of the Russian President's office to produce the report from which I quoted earlier.
Unfortunately, the UN Commission on Human Rights did not repeat its previous resolutions on Chechnya last April, but my understanding is that the resolutions passed in 2000 and 2001 are still in effect and that the requests made to the Russian Government still stand. Getting authoritative international observers into Chechnya is probably the single most important move that the international community, including the British Government, should press for.
Mr. David Drew: My hon. Friend is making a compelling case. Does he accept that the Russian Government's action took place in the context of considerable suppression? I recently did some work on closed cities such as Sarov, and it seems that some of the good work that Yeltsin began in opening up Russian society is being completely reversed under Putin; indeed, things are being screwed down. I do not have my hon. Friend's knowledge of Chechnya, but I believe that the
72WH
Russian Government are going backwards by not opening up to democratic freedom. That is why the way that we are dealing with the situation is problematic.
Mr. MacDonald: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At the beginning of the conflict, there might have been a case for giving some latitude to the Russian Government, in the hope that stability would be restored in Chechnya without an impact of the sort that he describes on other aspects of Russian politics and the Russian state. Some years into the conflict, that has not happened, and as I have said the pattern of human rights violations seems to be getting worse. That is corrosive to stability and to progress in the Russian political system.
I want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister some specific questions about the UN rapporteurs. Will the resolutions passed in 2000–01 still stand? And if they will, what steps are the Foreign and Commonwealth Office taking to try to persuade the Russians to accept, and to co-operate with, the UN rapporteurs that the resolutions call for?
Discussions are continuing between the OSCE and the Russian Government about renewing the monitoring mission in Chechnya—at least, there is an ongoing discussion about a monitoring mission in the Caucasus. Will the Minister also confirm that the Prime Minister will raise these issues with President Putin when he meets him next week? In particular, will he raise the issues of co-operating with the UN on rapporteurs in Chechnya, and of renewing the OSCE mission in Chechnya? It is tremendously important that the Prime Minister himself raise these issues.
When the Prime Minister met President Putin recently in St. Petersburg, he surprised many people with his comments about the recent referendum in Chechnya, on 23 March. In the 1 June edition of The Observer, the Prime Minister was quoted as saying:
"The referendum is a good step forward."
That was surprising, as we know that the Council of Europe's special representative on Chechnya, Lord Judd, resigned because he believed that the referendum was undemocratic. It could not be proper and democratic because of the conditions in which it was held.
In the 1997 referendum, the majority of Chechens supported the idea of independence, yet only six years later the Russian Government tell us that 95 per cent. of Chechens, from a turnout of 90 per cent., supported remaining part of the Russian Federation. A 90 per cent. turnout does not square with the independent reports from Chechnya. Le Monde, for example, reported that Grozny was practically deserted on the day of the referendum; and at a polling station at which the chief electoral officer declared that around 3,000 people had voted, the Le Monde correspondent counted fewer than 100 people.
Given that background, could the Minister clarify the Prime Minister's comment in St. Petersburg on the referendum? Do the Government believe that the referendum was conducted fairly and was a fair reflection of public opinion, or do they accept the more widely held international view that a referendum conducted under the conditions obtaining in Chechnya on 23 March has no credibility whatever?

73WH
The final aspect of the situation on which I would like the Minister to comment is the view—frequently expressed by Russian Government spokesmen, especially since 11 September—that the Russian Government are engaged in a conflict with Islamic fundamentalists and terrorists who have strong political and logistical links with the al-Qaeda network. The Russian Government advanced that argument to exonerate their activities, but few academics or experts on the region accept it.
For example, Anatol Lieven of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is quoted, in the most recent House of Commons Library briefing note on the matter, as having said the following in October of last year:
"The reality is that while links between Al Queda and the Chechnya conflicts do exist, they are not nearly as central to that struggle as Kremlin propaganda maintains."
Is not the reality that the Chechen war has much deeper historical, nationalist and tribal roots, and that it cannot simply be linked to the so-called war against terrorism? As a consequence of that, is not the correct approach to ending the conflict a political one—through negotiation and compromise—rather than through an anti-terrorist campaign? Again, it would be useful to hear the Minister's comments on whether the British Government accept the Russian Government's analysis.
The Chechen war is one of the saddest and most tragic episodes to affect a European country in the past decade. For many, it is striking how the behaviour of Russian forces in Chechnya and the attitudes of the Russian Government do not seem to attract as much international condemnation or pressure as, for example, the situation in Zimbabwe. Of course, it is invidious to compare two such situations. Nevertheless, there is a widespread sense that we are letting the Russian Government off rather lightly, and that sense grows stronger as the years go by and the death toll mounts, with still no sign of political progress. Indeed, the very opposite appears to be true. The human rights abuses seem to be more widespread, and the damage to and casualties of the Russian military continue to mount. Last month, The Times reported Russian military officials as saying that more than 4,500 Russian soldiers have been killed since the current phase of the war began in 1999. That is equivalent to the number of Russian deaths per year in Afghanistan during the 1980s.
There can be robust arguments and disagreements, even between good friends such as President Putin and the Prime Minister. President Putin certainly did not let his friendship with the Prime Minister get in the way of strongly condemning our role in the conflict in Iraq. It is time for the Prime Minister to start some serious arguments with the Russian Government. The longer we use reasons of realpolitik to turn a half-closed eye to what is happening in Chechnya, the more our rhetoric about policies elsewhere is undermined.
9.53 am
Dr. Julian Lewis: I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald) not only on having secured the debate, but on having made such a comprehensive case in such a measured way. I recall some years before I became a Member of Parliament being particularly impressed by
74WH
an article that he wrote for The Daily Telegraph, unusually for a Labour MP at that time, on the double standards that were sometimes applied by some people on the left to the misbehaviour of the Soviet bloc countries and the abuse of human rights there. Therefore, his stance today is entirely consistent with his honourable and long record on such subjects.
In view of the temperate spirit in which the hon. Gentleman made his case, I preface my remarks, which will focus on the narrow aspect of the activities, or possible activities, of the Russian intelligence service, the FSB, by saying that leaders of countries do not always know exactly what their intelligence services have been up to. [Interruption.] I note a few gentle laughs at that point.
Mr. Richard Spring: And vice versa.
Dr. Lewis: I cannot imagine what my hon. Friend is referring to.
President Putin will shortly arrive for a visit, but President Musharraf of Pakistan is in the country. He is a good example of the point that I have just made, because, although he has been at the forefront of the fight against al-Qaeda, it is also well known that the Pakistani intelligence service. Inter-Services Intelligence, has played a large part in generating, sustaining and supporting al-Qaeda over many years. That support is not necessarily known to have come to an end immediately after the events of September 2001.
I am concerned that all is not as clear as it might be in the case of Chechnya and the Russian intelligence service. Ever since Churchill famously described Russia as
"a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma"
one has known that everything should not be taken at face value. It must be said that if the Chechens are entirely responsible for some terrorist activities to which Russia has been subjected, at least since 1999, they have been extraordinarily bad tacticians. I have in mind the terrible explosions of September 1999, which occurred in apartment blocks in Moscow. The explosions were laid at the door of Chechen extremists and happened, conveniently, to provide the perfect casus belli for the second Russian invasion of Chechnya, which took place on 30 September that year.
There have been persistent suggestions—not just from the usual suspects—that the explosions might have been organised as a provocation and a pretext, rather than as a curiously counter-productive activity by Chechen extremists that could serve only to give the Russians the reasons that they might want to renew hostilities, which they did with surprising rapidity as soon as the event occurred.
I am particularly concerned about the events that took place during the siege of the Moscow theatre, which began on 23 October 2002. Something never quite added up. A theatre was taken over by a large number of people, many of whom had explosives strapped to their bodies, yet when that theatre was stormed not one of them exploded the devices that they had brought in. Even more sinister is the fact that not one of the quite large number of hostage-takers was taken alive, even though the point of the attack on the theatre was to immobilise them to such an extent that they would be unable to explode the devices strapped to their bodies.

75WH
One cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, the situation could have been so dangerous that, as in the case of the SAS handling of the Iranian embassy siege, there was no question of taking prisoners, because death and destruction might follow unless every hostage-taker was eliminated immediately. If that was the case, however, it is inconceivable that not one of those people could explode their devices.
On the other hand, if those people were so incapacitated, as they evidently were, that they could not explode their devices, why did the Russian authorities not act, if not from any sense of simple humanity, from the common-sense desire for the intelligence that might be gained from interrogating captives who had mounted such a damaging, dangerous and destructive operation in the heart of the Russian capital city? Why were those considerations put aside and the people executed on the spot while unconscious? Make no mistake about it, that is precisely what happened. Those people were out for the count and they were executed in cold blood.
One might say that those who live by hostage-taking deserve what they get, and I have some sympathy with that view, but it does not add up as a rational policy for an intelligence service apparently fighting a war against terrorism unnecessarily to kill every terrorist who comes in its power, when they might be kept alive and pumped for useful information on the terrorist organisation that they represent.
In that connection, I turn to an article sent to me by someone who has learned the hard way a great deal about Russian methods of operation, although, admittedly, Russian methods during the cold war—the famous and heroic Soviet dissident, Vladimir Bukovsky. Members will know that he survived 12 years of incarceration under the Soviet regime, many of them in the notorious Serbski institute, the psychiatric institute for the torture of sane people.
Vladimir sent me a French AFP—L'Agence France-Presse—report dated 28 April this year, which begins:
"Russian media on Monday accused the security services of placing a 'mole' among radical Chechen rebels who seized a Moscow theatre last October in a siege that ended with 129 deaths.
In a report backed by a Chechen rebel spokesman and a Russian former security officer, the newspaper Novaya Gazeta said former Chechen journalist Khanpach Terkipayev had infiltrated and helped to guide the 41-strong Chechen team that burst into the theatre.
The former officer claimed Moscow needed the hostage-taking because Western capitals were talking up prospects of negotiations with the separatist leadership in the breakaway southern Russian republic of Chechnya."
—[Interruption.] Of course, I now see warning lights flashing, as everyone says, "Oh, typical. The hon. Member for New Forest, East—a typical conspiracy theorist." All I would say is that that is not my conspiracy theory, and it is not something that should be seen in isolation.
There was a remarkable convenience about the apartment bomb explosions that took place so soon before the second Russian invasion of Chechnya. Here, one again sees a possible, credible and, I would say, quite convincing explanation, which would account for two things. First, it might be seen to be in the perceived
76WH
interests of the FSB, if not the Russian leadership themselves, that such a siege should take place. Secondly, it would explain why it was not considered necessary, or even desirable, for any of those terrorists—I make no bones about calling them terrorists, and they were undoubtedly Chechens—who took the hostages to be taken alive and interrogated. What they might have had to say on the subject might have been more revealing than the FSB would have liked.
I shall not detain the House for much longer, but I should conclude by illustrating the fact that there is a long and dishonourable tradition of pretexts being found for invasions. If one goes back to August 1968, which I am old enough to remember, one recalls that the line given out by the Soviet propaganda machine was that there was no such thing as the Soviet invasion of Prague, but that the Soviet forces were invited in by the Czechs. I see the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), who is a Liberal Democrat, nodding his assent; he also remembers that. I remember a typical east European black humour joke of the time: "What are tanks and 30,000 Soviet troops doing in Czechoslovakia?" The answer was, "Looking for the people who invited them there."
However, the tradition goes back a lot further. For example, had Germany won the war, it would have been said not that the Germans invaded Poland on 1 September 1939, but that the Poles attacked the German radio station at Gleiwitz, just on the German side of the German-Polish border. An SS thug called Naujocks mounted an operation in which a victim from a concentration camp was selected, dressed up in Polish army uniform, executed and left at the site of the radio station as the pretext. Even Adolf Hitler sometimes felt it necessary to have an excuse for his aggressions. I am sure that better historians than me could cite many more examples from further back in history.
My theory is not as far-fetched as it seems, and those who wonder whether I am seeing phantoms where there are none must come up with a simple explanation. There was something fishy, strange and orchestrated about the way that that large number of people were able to take over the theatre, and the fact that once they had been rendered unconscious and unable to set off any of the many explosive devices, they were killed in their sleep rather than kept for interrogation. If someone can explain that to me, I will abandon my conspiracy theory. Until then, however, I shall remain cautious, sceptical and cynical about some of the dirty games being played in the terrible war that Russia is waging in Chechnya.
10.7 am
Bob Russell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald) on securing the debate and on drawing attention to this dirty conflict in Europe's backyard.
If, under this Government, we still have an ethical foreign policy, I hope that the Prime Minister and others who meet President Putin draw attention to the United Kingdom's displeasure at what is going on in Chechnya. I endorse the points made by the hon. Members for Western Isles and for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis).
I ask the Minister to examine the question of the deportation of Chechen nationals from the UK to the Russian Federation and, in a spirit of joined-up

77WH
government, to discuss that serious matter with his Home Office colleagues. I raised it in the Home Affairs Committee, during sessions with the Home Secretary, and with a Home Office Minister. I have also tabled parliamentary questions on the subject. There is, however, confusion, or at least a lack of consistency, in the oral statements and written answers that I have received. The Government do not seem to be sure what is happening, although I am sure that the Russian Government know very well what is going on.
In response to a question that I tabled on how many people of Chechen origin were deported from the UK to the Russian Federation, the answer was:
"Information on the number of people deported from the United Kingdom to the Russian Federation, including those of Chechen origin, and on the destinations to which they were deported, is not available."—[Official Report, 3 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 144W.]
I would have thought that the Government knew how many people they were deporting and the destination, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt. They may not be too sure whether those people are Chechens, but I would have thought that that is a material factor. Such people are here, particularly the young men, precisely because they wish to get away from the horror in their homeland.
If the Government send those young men back to the Russian Federation, Moscow or St. Petersburg are the most likely destinations. We have heard what has happened in Chechnya to young Chechen males, and the hon. Member for New Forest, East described what has happened to Chechens who are caught up in incidents in Moscow. Just imagine what happens to one or two lone Chechen males who are deported and fly in to Moscow or St. Petersburg. Are they really put on the inter-city to Grozny? I think not. The Government have a responsibility to find out where those young Chechen males are being sent and what happens to them after they are dumped in Moscow or St. Petersburg.
Back in October, I was assured that the Home Office, in conjunction with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, closely monitors the situation in the Russian Federation and the conflict in Chechnya in particular. I urged the Government not to deport any Chechens, particularly young males, while the problems in Chechnya continued. I have to say to the Minister that there is a sporting chance that not all those young Chechen males make it back to Chechnya. There are stories that those young males are taken out; they do not arrive back in their homeland. It is perhaps going too far to say that the Government have blood on their hands, but would it not be best to allow those who seek sanctuary from Chechnya to remain here until it is safe to return or to ensure that they are returned directly to Chechnya via a safe route rather than via Moscow or St. Petersburg?
I hope that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and others who will meet President Putin shortly tell him that they have doubts about whether the Chechens who are returned to the Russian Federation have a safe passage back to Chechnya. If the President cannot give that guarantee—the anecdotal evidence is that he cannot—I urge the Minister to have words with his Home Office colleagues so that no more young Chechen males are sent back to the Russian Federation, possibly to their death and certainly to treatment that he would
78WH
not wish to have visited on them in this country. It is not good enough to wash our hands of the matter by sending them over to Moscow or St. Petersburg in the hope that the Russian authorities give them safe passage back to their homeland.
Two young Chechen males live in my constituency. They have work permits, they are very hard working, they pay taxes, they are net contributors to the economy of this country, they wish to remain here and their employer wishes them to remain here. The only problem is that the Government want to send them back to the Russian Federation. Those men are in fear of their lives.
10.13 am
Mr. Crispin Blunt: I apologise for arriving late and missing the opening speech. I congratulate the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald) on securing this debate. I tried to secure a debate on Chechnya, too. I did not link it to President Putin's visit but that link is important. The United Kingdom, as a candid friend of Russia, and the Prime Minister, as a candid friend of the Russian President, have an opportunity to get some unmistakable messages across about the Chechen conflict. That is plainly in all our interests.
My first point relates to the quotation, cited in the Library brief, attributed to President Putin. On the day that he became president, new year's day 2000, he visited the Russian army, then engaged in operations in Chechnya, and said:
"I want you to know that Russia values highly what you are doing, and what you are doing is very necessary for the country, very necessary. We are not talking simply about restoring the honour and dignity of the country. No, we are talking about more serious matters. We are talking about putting an end to the disintegration of Russia."
That touches on what drives President Putin, and many Russians, to continue this appalling conflict in the terrible way that they are. Obviously, there is huge concern that, if Chechnya were allowed to exercise its right to self-determination, for which Chechens would undoubtedly vote if they were not presented with the sort of referendum process that they have just been presented with, it would choose to be an independent republic.
If one looks at the history of Russia's involvement in Chechnya from the 19th century onwards and under the Soviet system, which determined whether it was to be autonomous or a region of the Soviet Union on the same basis as the 15 countries that are now independent republics, one can see that it ended up in its current state by a completely arbitrary process.
There is definitely a case for the Prime Minister to put to President Putin privately the simple point that the awful casualties being suffered by the Russian armed forces and the appalling stain on their reputation left by the way in which they are conducting the campaign, quite apart from the terrible consequences for the Chechens of the dreadful way that the Russian armed forces have behaved, could be dealt with by allowing the Chechens a proper route to self-determination.
The price that the Russians think that they might pay—the disintegration of the Russian Federation—simply does not stand up to analysis. To any outside observer, the cost of trying to hang on to Chechnya as

79WH
part of the Russian Federation is way beyond any conceivable benefit that the Russians would get from forcing Chechnya to remain part of that federation.
We have had to face up to that in Northern Ireland. Part of the settlement in Northern Ireland is to accept that it is for the people of Northern Ireland to determine their future constitutional status. We have got over the psychological hump of being determined to impose on the people of Northern Ireland a union with Great Britain whether they wanted it or not. The Russians need to make that jump as far as Chechnya is concerned.
The other element of President Putin's remarks concerned restoring the honour and dignity of the country. The tragedy is that the Chechen conflict is doing the reverse. It is besmirching the honour of Russia and the Russian armed forces, through the way in which they carry out their campaign. The appalling treatment that is being meted out to the Chechen people is utterly undignified.
If the hon. Member for Western Isles has not done so already—I apologise if he has—I pay tribute to Lord Judd for the splendid work that he has done in keeping the issue at the forefront of the work of the Council of Europe. He is trying to keep it in the purview of European policy makers, so that it is constantly focused on. That is another reason for it to be high on the Prime Minister's agenda when he meets President Putin during his visit.
The issue that must concern us all, which is a threat to the security of us all, is the potential Islamisation of the conflict. It is a national conflict, as is the Palestinian conflict, and they have in common an attraction for an utterly dangerous element: the religious fanatic. Islamic fanatics are exploiting those conflicts for wider religious purposes. Those causes have a significant degree of legitimacy and justification because of the treatment received by the Palestinian and Chechen peoples.
If we think that the situation in Palestine is bad in terms of the number of people who have been killed, it is many times worse in Chechnya, but the nature of the conflict and the way in which it has been handled has made it difficult for reporters and aid agencies to work safely in Chechnya. It is not at the forefront of the public's mind because it is not reported every day in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. We must attend to that, but it is no reason for Chechnya not appearing high on the list of the Prime Minister's priorities when he speaks to the President of Russia.
The conflict in Chechnya not only dishonours and disgraces the Russians, but is a dreadful tragedy. Parliamentarians who are interested in international affairs and simple human decency should promote and concentrate on our duty, and that falls primarily to the Prime Minister in his talks with the President of Russia. I hope that the Prime Minister will be a candid friend and make it clear to President Putin that, although the course of action on which he embarked and the way in which he presented that to the Russian people may have been responsible for getting him elected, he must find a way to end the dreadful conflict as soon as possible and in the widest interests of Russia and the world. He must allow the people of Chechnya the right of self-determination and give Russia and the Chechen people an escape route from what is an appalling tragedy.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: In the interests of equity, it may be appropriate for the three Front Benchers to take no more than one third of the time available.
10.22 am
Mr. Michael Moore: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I doubt that I will want to prevail on you for even that long. It is important that the Minister is given as much time as possible to answer the serious points that have been raised.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald) on raising an important matter at an important time. He was right in his opening speech to place the matter in the context of the importance of the relationship with Russia overall. We must not lose sight of that, nor should we be quiet about some of the worries about Chechnya to which others have also referred during the debate.
Chechnya, sadly, occupies a desperate place in our thoughts about the world's trouble spots. The bloody history of the past 12 years has regularly shocked us, and the atrocities and tragedies, such as last October's theatre siege, have never been far from our minds. Hon. Members who have spoken detailed much of the history and listed many of the abuses committed by Russians and Chechens alike. I shall not repeat those, but we cannot escape the fact that the situation is horrific.
The Russian position has been clearly stated in many different ways. One of the key clauses in the constitution handed down by the Federation to Chechnya earlier this year says:
"The territory of the Chechen republic is indivisible and is an integral part of the territory of the Russian federation".
The presence of 80,000 troops in the republic sends a very clear signal, as does the completely dismissive attitude taken by the Russian Government towards outside opinion, in the many ways in which it is expressed. That is most evident in their failure to allow the continuation of the assistance group of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which was doing such good work in Chechnya until the end of last year, and their failure, which has been remarked on, to allow United Nations special rapporteurs to have access to the country.
All the Russian Government's arguments tend to be put in the context of the war on international terrorism. No one would deny the potential links between those who fight in Chechnya and the wider international war, but only the most myopic of observers could fail to see the wider desire for political change that exists in the Chechen Republic and the legitimate concerns of thousands who live there. Nor could anyone fail to see the scale of the human rights abuses that have been committed by both sides in the conflict, which are detailed in many sources.
Torture, illegal detentions, hostage taking, the destruction of property and the targeting of civilians have been carried out. Perhaps we are slightly inured to that being done by terrorist groups; we do not condone it, but there is a history of it. The shock here is that many of those abuses are carried out by the Russian Federation, not least the disappearance of so many Chechens, in Chechnya itself and elsewhere in the

81WH
Federation. What most people find particularly galling and an international disgrace is the degree of impunity that appears to exist in the Federation, and the failure of the Russian authorities to bring to justice anyone in the Russian army who may have been guilty of atrocities. All that has led to a climate of fear and loathing.
Amnesty International's newly published 2003 report sets that out very clearly, saying:
"Russian security forces committed serious human rights violations and breached international humanitarian law in the continuing conflict in the Chechen Republic, with almost total impunity … law enforcement agencies cracked down on Chechen civilians throughout the Russian Federation … An estimated 110,000 internally displaced Chechens lived in harsh conditions in neighbouring Ingushetia. They reportedly faced forcible return to Chechnya, in conditions where their security and dignity could not be assured."
Amnesty widened the scope of its report to highlight abuses by Chechen armed groups. The hon. Member for Western Isles rightly mentioned Human Rights Watch, detailing many of the issues that it has highlighted in Chechnya. I shall not repeat those, but I hope that the Minister will find time to comment on the abuses that have been documented.
No one would deny that the Russian Government have the right, and indeed the duty, to maintain law and order and to tackle international terrorism, but that must surely be done in the context of international law, and that Government should have the confidence to allow international monitors the freedom and protection to carry out their work. Of course, they would argue that some political steps have been taken. The new constitution sets that our reasonably clearly, and there is an expectation of presidential and parliamentary elections later this year.
However, there are serious questions even there. There are real doubts about the legitimacy of the constitutional referendum held earlier this year, although our Prime Minister is reported as saying that that was "a good step forward". The Council of Europe has been dismissive. Few credit the turnout claimed at the time, or still less the 96 per cent. in favour of the new constitution. As the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) highlighted, that was at odds with the referendum six years previously, which sought independence. Washington think-tanks have also publicised a confidential OSCE briefing, which was highly critical of election irregularities. If the referendum was an attempt to win hearts and minds and provide legitimacy, it has singularly failed.
The question for us today is the position that our Government will take, not least when the President makes his state visit to the country next week. The clearest statement of Government policy was made by Baroness Amos in another place when, in her previous role, she spoke on the Government's position last December. She spoke of their requirement to recognise the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation. That may be right, but surely the self-determination of the people of Chechnya must count for something as well. She also emphasised the right and the obligation of the Russian authorities to defend their citizens from terrorism. No one would dispute that, but a responsibility surely exists to adhere to the rule of law and respect human rights. The Government have said as much in answers to parliamentary questions and in occasional quotations in the press.
82WH
The key question is how vigorously the Government are making their concerns known to Russia. The hon. Member for Western Isles talked about how a friendly relationship should also be a robust relationship. We must hope that the Minister will characterise the relationship in that way when he replies. We all acknowledge the importance of Russia's role in the world, and its importance to the UK. We understand that there are sensitive areas to discuss next week, not least the road map for peace in the middle east and Russia's plan to provide nuclear fuel to the Iranians in the absence of the latter's full compliance with the requests of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Sensitivity to those issues should not mean that we ignore the serious problems in Chechnya.
We ought to be insisting on full co-operation with the United Nations special rapporteurs on torture and extra-judicial executions, and on the renewal of the mandate for the OSCE's assistance group to Chechnya. We should also make the case for allowing organisations such as Human Rights Watch to have access to the republic. In March 2003, it was denied access for the 10th time. As the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) said, a proper and legitimate route to self-determination in Chechnya should be provided. Sadly, that is lacking at present.
The hon. Member for Western Isles highlighted the fact that in the dispute over the Iraq war, Russia did not hesitate to set out a position very different from that of the UK Government. In this country, we should not hold back in our criticism of Russia. The matter is not a minor blot on our relations with Russia; it is not something that we can just cast aside as unimportant. We must hope that next week, when President Putin visits this country, we do not tiptoe round the problem, but confront matters head on.
10.33 am
Mr. Richard Spring: I, too, warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald) on securing the debate and putting forward his case in an extraordinarily comprehensive and moderate way, which won the attention of us all. I warmly congratulate also my hon. Friends the Members for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), my reasonably near neighbour, the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), and everyone else who has contributed to the debate this morning and shown a considerable knowledge of the subject and concern for the situation in Chechnya.
Russia is a country that straddles a number of worlds, in every sense of the word. It is a country of massive economic potential with enormous natural resources, and key strategic influence, counter-balanced by an old-fashioned bureaucratic structure, considerable environmental problems, and the difficult ongoing conflict in Chechnya, which has soured international relationships and brought the spotlight on Russia in a negative way. I will obey your injunctions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I know how anxious the Minister is to give a comprehensive reply.
We certainly heard from the hon. Member for Western Isles about the need to resolve the Chechnya situation. I will go into that in detail later, but I hope that I will be given a little licence to make a few

83WH
comments about Russia in the context of the important visit of President Putin to the United Kingdom, and to encourage the positive things that are happening in Russia in the hope that that may lead to a political resolution to the problem in Chechnya. There is no solution other than fresh political development.
President Putin has demonstrated on the international stage that he is a pragmatist. He has committed the country to economic influence and prosperity. In his state of the nation address on 19 May, he talked about taking the next step. I want to cite some of the things involved, because the contrast between what he was talking about in that context and some of the problems in Chechnya is a comparison that needs to be made.
President Putin has talked about the need to reform the economy and the political system in Russia. There are pretty encouraging signs in terms of economic development and investment in fixed assets. Importantly, Russia has ceased to be an importer of grain and has become an exporter. The IT industry in the country is growing. However, the state apparatus remains inefficient, and President Putin has promised to try to deal with the issue. Unfortunately, a quarter of Russian citizens still have incomes below the living minimum. President Putin has also committed himself to a functioning competitive market economy with property rights that are properly secured. It is a positive sign that the EU has granted Russia the status of a market economy. Russia still has much more to do in terms of protecting contracts and investor rights, and upholding the rule of law in that context.
President Putin has also talked about—this chimes in with the debate—the establishment of a civil society and sustainable democracy in which human rights and civil and political rights will be fully ensured. He is well aware of the problems, and he recently described them as follows:
"The institution of democracy has not developed properly in our country yet … Our laws are correct but they either don't work or just disappear".
That is an interesting insight as it applies to Chechnya. Will the Minister respond to that point? It is an important one in the context. I hope that the Prime Minister will remind the President of that important observation during his conversations.
Another priority is improved living conditions. President Putin recognises the need for a substantially higher standard of living for the Russian people. Although there has been much progress on that front, there is still much to do.
Finally, President Putin has talked about the need to improve Russia's international relationships. The spotlight inevitably shines on Russia in terms of human and civil rights because of that issue. I hope that that will be brought into play in the discussions between the two leaders.
On 13 March, my noble Friend Lord Howell sought assurances in another place about the recent referendum on the constitution that cements Chechnya's status as part of Russia, while promising limited autonomy. What form that autonomy will take has yet to be decided. I would be interested to hear from the Minister
84WH
what his preferences are. Does he agree with the EU that the referendum has had a positive impact in achieving the Government's objectives by promoting human rights in Chechnya? What of the amnesty attached to that deal? The matter is important and echoes the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East. Critics have said that it is meaningless to talk in such terms because clemency is denied to anyone who has tried to kill federal police and servicemen. That issue needs to be addressed.
There is an economic aspect to the conflict in Chechnya. The Russian media have branded the region a black hole. Much of the money earmarked for restoration winds up in the pockets of business men—that might be one way of putting it—and corrupt authorities. Russian auditors examining Chechnya's restoration finances have documented the theft or misuse of more than $33 million in the past two years.
The territorial integrity of the Russian Federation and the right of the Russian Government to defend their citizens against terrorism are, of course, vital and understood. Historically, Russia has always been extremely sensitive about its territorial integrity, but ultimately the conflict in Chechnya cannot be resolved by military means alone.
We have seen on the international stage that President Putin, whom I describe as a pragmatist, is capable of new and original thinking. Examples are the way in which he reacted after 11 September and the offer in respect of US military bases in central Asia. Agreements about that have been reached by the US and Russia. President Putin signed a friendship treaty with China. He has also entered the NATO-Russia Council, which was set up last year. These are good examples of how Russia has adapted. In many respects, President Putin has moved the country forward into a much more modern context. Nevertheless, the problem of Chechnya remains. I hope that, in the conversations that take place between the two leaders, some of the matters that have been raised this morning will be alluded to in a spirit of friendship and candour.
Much of Russian society is still trying to find its bearings. The situation in Chechnya remains an enduring problem and obviously causes the Russian people great anxiety because of the alleged threat of terrorism and the impact on attitudes in the outside world. A political settlement is desperately needed if the violence, waste and corruption that bedevil relations between Moscow and Grozny, while at the same time sapping the Russian economy of resources that it can ill afford, are to be resolved.
We see many hopeful signs in Russia, such as economic reform and greater democratic development, but the picture is still very mixed. The institutions of civil society are taking shape, but the roots sometimes seem to be shallow, and the habits and practices of decades of communism still lie too close to the surface. A resolution of the Chechnya problem for Russia, both externally and internally, will greatly assist the forces of progress that we want to move Russia on and to win the argument within Russia.
10.42 am
The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): I join other Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald) on

85WH
obtaining the debate, and I commend the measured way in which all speakers have contributed. I hope that the Russian authorities read the record of the debate; I am sure that it will be transmitted to them by the first-rate Russian ambassador to London. The strength of the House of Commons is that it allows serious matters to be raised and tough questions to be put in the public domain in a way that conveys the concerns of many Members.
The reason for the debate is President Putin's visit—the first visit by a Russian Head of State since the 1840s. Also, there is the excellent report by Human Rights Watch. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles in paying tribute to that fine organisation, and we are pleased that it is opening an office in London. That reflects the sense that London has historically been one of the world capitals in which, when state-to-state relations between Governments have not always been conducted on the basis of candour—I am looking back over more than a century—there has been a functioning civil society and discussion of human rights. Human Rights Watch is part of that tradition.
It is 550 years since the first British mission went to Russia. It was sent by King Edward VI to Ivan the Terrible, who returned the compliment by sending an ambassador to London in the 1550s and hinting in correspondence at the possibility of marriage to Queen Elizabeth I. That might have been a remarkable English-Russian union—who knows what the history of both countries might have been?
We will welcome President Putin next week, and I have been asked to be a candid friend to him. That relates to a point—it was repeated by the Opposition spokesman on Europe, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring)—made by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) in his important speech. I recall the words of a distinguished former Foreign Secretary, Lord Canning:
"But of all the plagues, good Heaven, thy wrath can send, Save me, oh, save me, from the candid friend."
There comes a time in inter-state relations when candour can be counter-productive, and I shall develop that point in replying to the individual questions.
Let there be no doubt that the issue of Chechnya is important not only in London, but in many other capitals around the world. It is discussed at the UN Commission on Human Rights and the Council of Europe, and President Putin is well aware that it is on the international agenda.
Mr. Blunt: I am concerned by the Minister's words, which imply that the Prime Minister might choose not to raise Chechnya with the President. Members who have participated in the debate would find it regrettable if that were the case. Will the Minister make it clear that he is not making that point and confirm that Chechnya will appear on the agenda?
Mr. MacShane: I shall come to that point, which is perfectly fair, after developing my remarks in the generous time left to me.
The problems of all the different conflicts remain as Russia continues to develop and to escape from the evil legacy of its Leninist-Stalinist-Brezhnevite past. It is developing as a modern market economy under the rule
86WH
of law to escape not only its Soviet past, but the long decades, if not centuries, of autocracy before 1917. We should be careful not to demand tomorrow that Russia live by standards that have existed in, for example, Switzerland and Sweden for 100 years or in Britain for a long time.
We should judge Russia by its own standards. The Russian constitution is clear, and President Putin's insistence that Russia's destiny is European is also clear. Russia should be judged by the standards that we expect all European states that are signatories to UN and Council of Europe conventions to abide by.
We welcome President Putin's commitment to the reform process in the economic, administrative and judicial fields and to tackling the challenges that remain. Significant progress has been made over the past two years. The Russian Government have established macro-economic stability, and they have also passed important legislation to create a market in land for the first time since the Russian revolution and to start work on the reform of their monopolies. An impressive judicial reform package is transforming criminal, civil and commercial law to bring Russia in line with western standards.
The Russian Government are committed to maintaining the momentum of reform. They recognise that they must tackle some of Russia's most difficult and deep-seated problems, including restructuring, reconstruction and poor implementation. Ensuring that the reform process supports the administrative and judicial functions is a major challenge on which the United Kingdom has been working closely with Russia. Our support has included assistance with not only economic targets such as Russia's progress towards joining the World Trade Organisation, but the reform of the judiciary and civil service in promoting civil society and the protection of human rights.
The Government welcome the successful development of our relations with Russia and the progress being made by the internal reform programme. We recognise that there are many issues still to address, including Chechnya, which is the principal focus of the debate, but all those concerns, whether they are about human rights, economic reform or the development of civil society, can best be addressed by dialogue. Maintaining our dialogue at a high level will allow us to continue to support Russia's development into a country that is a genuine partner with shared values.
The debate has focused on Chechnya, and I share all the concerns that Members have expressed. Many tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people have been killed or injured in the fighting over the past 10 years, and nearly two thirds of Chechnya's population have been displaced. Many people remain in temporary shelters that were constructed when the conflict began; many more depend on humanitarian aid. No one, including the Russian Government, has disputed the human cost of this conflict.
Equally, however, it cannot it be disputed that Russia faced a serious security threat in the region before the current conflict began. Chechnya had descended into near anarchy soon after Russian forces withdrew in January 1997. Kidnapping gangs were operating in the republic with impunity. There was no rule of law or state authority. I need hardly remind Members of the

87WH
kidnapping and brutal murder of four telecommunications engineers, including three Britons, in December 1998.
The influence of Islamic extremists has also been growing in Chechnya. In summer 1999, about 1,000 heavily armed militants, backed by Arab mujaheddin, attacked the neighbouring Russian republic of Dagestan. Clearly, the Russian Government needed to act to prevent those acts of aggression from happening again.
Russia has consistently presented the war in Chechnya as a counter-terrorist operation, and we recognise the serious threat posed by terrorism in the region. In recent years, the general rule in Europe has been that no state will see its territorial integrity broken under the threat of violent terrorism aimed at killing innocent people to secure political ends. That was wholly unacceptable to the British Government in Northern Ireland, and it is unacceptable to other Governments in Europe.
Bob Russell: In the light of the serious matters that the Minister has raised, does he agree that the last thing that this country should be doing is returning Chechen nationals to the Russian Federation? It is clear that the Russian Government believe that any Chechen outside Chechnya must be placed under suspicion. The consequences for those under suspicion in the Russian Federation are not good.
Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman raised issues that properly are questions for the Home Office. I am not seeking to duck them, and we all have difficult asylum cases to deal with. People come to our surgeries after their demands to stay in this country have been turned down. Every Member must wrestle with many such cases; I must have some trust in the authorities. Each case is considered on its merits. The hon. Gentleman asked me, as a Foreign Office Minister, to answer several questions that he tabled to the Home Office. I am happy to write to him, but I suspect that he needs to take up those issues with the Home Office and perhaps secure a debate, if he is so moved.
Dr. Lewis: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. MacShane: May I continue? I must answer the questions asked by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell).
We remember the horror of last October's theatre siege in Moscow in which a terrorist group, linked to the Chechen extremist Shamil Basayev, took more than 800 innocent people hostage and threatened to kill them if Russian troops did not withdraw immediately from Chechnya. I have no doubt that it would have carried out its threat had the Russian authorities not launched a rescue operation. Basayev has also claimed responsibility for organising a series of suicide bombings in Chechnya and elsewhere in Russia. Nearly 200 people, mostly civilians, have been killed in those terrorist atrocities in the past six months and many more have been injured. We might have some regard for the families of the victims of the terrorist activities.
88WH
I am interested in the elaboration on what the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) referred to as conspiracy theories. If terrorists with political aims had taken hostages in a London theatre, it is hard to believe that we would have invented a conspiracy theory to explain that it had all been got up by the security forces. Does he really maintain that the people who threatened to kill hundreds in the Moscow theatre were manipulated by the Russian security forces?
Dr. Lewis: I thank the Minister for finally giving way, as what he said is a perversion of what I said, as he well knows. There is no doubt that the people who mounted the attack were terrorists, but the question is why the unconscious terrorists were eliminated. If that had happened in a similar attack in this country, there would have been a furore over it. Will he answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate: will the Prime Minister put Chechnya on the agenda for discussion with President Putin? Yes or no, please.
Mr. MacShane: I take exception to the nature of these interventions in what has been a well-tempered and moderate debate. Terrorists have been killed during action taken by our security forces to free hostages. I do not remember members of the Conservative party, inside or outside Parliament, raising the matter. The Znamenskoye bombings in May killed 100, and only two weeks ago terrorist bombings in Mozdok, in North Ossetia near the Chechen border, killed 80. That aspect of the issue has not been raised in the debate, and it is important to put those terrorist atrocities on the record.
Basayev and other militant groupings in Chechnya do not operate in isolation; they receive logistical and financial support from Arab mujaheddin operating in Chechnya and further afield. That is why the United Kingdom and other United Nations Security Council members took action against those groups under resolution 1267.
Mr. Spring: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. MacShane: I have no time, as I must put my points on the record. It is important to name the groups, which are the Riyadh as-Salikhin reconnaissance and sabotage battalion of Chechen martyrs, the special purpose Islamic regiment and the Islamic international brigade.
We, and our European Union partners, have been consistent in stressing that any operations in Chechnya must respect human rights and the rule of law. That is the Government's position in discussions with the Russian authorities.
Mr. Spring rose—
Mr. Blunt rose—
Mr. MacShane: I am not giving way. I am glad to confirm that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will indeed raise the situation in Chechnya again when he meets the Russian Minister next week. The conflict cannot be resolved by military means alone, which is why we called for a political solution and why the Prime Minister welcomed the recent constitutional referendum in Chechnya, in line with other EU partners.

89WH
The constitutional process is part of a political process, which is the right way forward. We tried to raise the issue at the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, but were unsuccessful. Although we have friends in Europe and the United States, the resolution was opposed by Brazil, China, India, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Ukraine, Venezuela and, of course, Zimbabwe. However, we will continue to put the issue on the international agenda. I have had some good conversations about it with my noble Friend Lord Judd, and it is a concern for the Council of Europe and throughout the EU. President Putin is aware of that, and when he and his delegation visit London next week, the question will be raised with the Russian Foreign Minister. That is the correct way for a foreign policy issue to be discussed.
I thank all Members for their contributions and for bringing this important issue to the attention of the British people through this morning's debate.

Rail Services (Holyhead and London)
11 am
Chris Ruane: I apologise for almost being late. I must now catch my breath after rushing to be here.
Ian Lucas: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is entirely appropriate for him to be almost late for a debate on the services between London and Holyhead, because of the appalling punctuality that we often encounter as regular commuters between north Wales and London?
Chris Ruane: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and for giving me time to catch my breath—I was out of puff like the trains.
I secured this debate on behalf of a the north Wales group of Labour MPs. We represent eight of the nine parliamentary seats in north Wales, and the group was established a year ago to campaign on three main priorities: rail services, crime and quality jobs.
This debate is part of a series of actions that we have undertaken to improve rail services in north Wales. I have questioned the Prime Minister on the Floor of the House, the group has met the Minister for Transport, and we have convened meetings with the Strategic Rail Authority, Network Rail, Virgin Trains, north Wales councils and members of the rail passenger committee for Wales. We have also asked for a meeting with the Secretary of State for Wales to alert him to our concerns.
The north Wales rail line is on the trans-European network system and is of strategic importance to not only the UK, but the whole of Europe, connecting Europe's westerly extremities—Wales and Ireland—to its centre. To that end, our group has contacted the Irish embassy and consulate in Cardiff to try to arrange a meeting with the Irish Transport Minister to alert him to our concerns and to ask whether the Irish Government could help to improve transport connections to Holyhead and through to London.
Our group's main aim is to secure fair funding for the north Wales rail line and to ensure that we have a 21st-century service to serve our economy and people. It is interesting to see that there are no Conservative or Liberal Democrat Members present, and most Members would agree that the previous Conservative Government have a lot to answer for given the current state of the rail service, not only in north Wales but throughout the United Kingdom. For 18 years, they starved our railway system of the necessary investment. They knew that Labour would win the 1997 general election and embarked on one of the biggest, botched privatisations in history.
Rail users and British taxpayers are paying the price for those mistakes, and credit should be given to the Labour Government for a massive £180 billion investment in UK transport in the next 10 years. Some £30 billion of that has, I believe, been earmarked for rail transport improvements. As a constituency MP and a member of the north Wales group of Labour MPs, I see it as my job to ensure that north Wales gets its fair slice of the cake.
Albert Owen: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that, although a lot of money is available in

91WH
the 10-year plan, none of it is for rail infrastructure? We have rolling stock capable of 120-plus mph, but on parts of the north Wales rail line it cannot exceed 75 mph. Investment in the infrastructure and line speeds should be the priority.
Chris Ruane: That was a pertinent intervention, and I shall deal with that question shortly. My hon. Friend is right that north Wales has not had its fair share thus far, if one considers the investments that have been made. The east coast main line is one of the best services in the UK. It has been upgraded, and there is even talk of establishing a second dedicated east coast main line from Edinburgh to London at a cost of £6 billion. I know of MPs who are pushing for that. The west coast main line investment is £9 billion. It is two years behind schedule, which is a disappointment.
Hywel Williams: With his customary eloquence and subtlety, the hon. Gentleman has ignored the six years since the end of the previous Conservative Government. Does he hold his Government at all responsible for the woeful state of the north Wales line, as well as others?
Chris Ruane: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I hold my Government to account for their £180 billion investment in transport and their £30 billion investment in the rail network. I see my job as a north Wales constituency MP to ensure that my constituents get their fair share and to fight their corner. That is why I am here today, why I have questioned the Prime Minister on the Floor of the House, why we had the meeting with the Minister for Transport and why we campaign on the issue.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) said, we need investment in the infrastructure. Chris Green, the chief executive of Virgin Trains, told me that the new trains that will be in place by 2004 would travel at 90 mph from Holyhead to Crewe and at 125 mph after Crewe. That is a second-rate service for Wales, and I am not prepared to tolerate it. I shall fight for better.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. My colleague and I also have meetings arranged with the Strategic Rail Authority, so this is not a party political matter. We are all working hard on behalf of the travelling public in Wales. The hon. Gentleman says that north Wales is at present hard done by financially, and that is quite possible—it is why we are all campaigning. On reflection, does he not think that he should have joined us in calling for a separate SRA for Wales?
Chris Ruane: No, I do not think that. We are fighting our corner well and pertinently in the House of Commons. It should be borne in mind that the vast majority of the London to Holyhead rail journey takes place in England. I am fighting for improvement not just across the north Wales stretch, but from Holyhead all the way to Euston. The co-operation of our colleagues in England will be required to achieve that. In fact, we have
92WH
the support of English Members such as my hon. Friends the Members for City of Chester (Ms Russell) and for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).
Bearing in mind the investment of £9 billion for the west coast main line and the £6 billion for a new east coast main line, I am informed—again, by Chris Green—that the cost of the upgrade of the north Wales section from Holyhead to Crewe will be some £10 million to £20 million. Compared with £6 billion or £9 billion, £20 million or even £30 million is a drop in the ocean. I shall repeat my points in my summary, but I ask the Minister to consider the request for a track upgrade on the north Wales rail line as a matter of priority.
I also wish to discuss investment in train stock. First North Western has made good progress in improving its stock. Six years ago, when I first became a Member of this House and a regular rail user along the north Wales coast, the rolling stock was absolutely filthy. There was no running water, the toilets did not flush and there was grease on the back of the seats. First North Western has allocated £100 million to new rolling stock such as the Coradia 175s. I welcome that investment.
There were massive teething problems at the beginning. The trains were very unreliable, but Vernon Baker, the managing director of First North Western, has told me that the problems have now been ironed out and that the company achieves 86 per cent. reliability compared with a national average of 80 per cent., although my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester questions the figures.
Mrs. Betty Williams: My hon. Friend has mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Ms Russell) several times in his remarks. Is he aware that, on one of her journeys on Virgin Trains, part of the seat on which she was sitting fell off? He may also be aware that some of us have asked the Secretary of State to travel with us on the London to Holyhead route, to sample the terrible rolling stock that we have to endure several times a week as we travel from our constituencies to Westminster. Will he pursue that request to the Secretary of State to join us on one of our journeys?
Mr. Llwyd: Don't hold your breath.
Chris Ruane: My hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) makes an excellent suggestion. I shall take it up with the Secretary of State when I meet him.
There has been some improvement by First North Western, and I hope that it has put its teething troubles behind it. Virgin Trains has also promised to improve its stock. We have waited a long time for that—the original promise made by Virgin Trains was that seven more four-carriage trains would be introduced by 2004. However, when we met Virgin six months ago in a Committee Room in the House, we were told that that figure had been revised downward from seven trains per day to three or four per day. We were very disappointed at that. I spoke to Chris Green on Monday, and he assured me that five new trains—not three—will be introduced, including three nine-carriage Pendolinos, the state-of-the-art trains that are the best in the Virgin fleet. I am pleased about that, but I am still disappointed that we are two trains a day short. I hope that the Minister will put

93WH
pressure on Virgin Trains and on the SRA to ensure that we get those seven trains—even if that is a long-term objective.
Mrs. Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that when a group of MPs visited Derby, where those trains are built, they discovered that Virgin Trains had not ordered enough trains to meet the demands that it had set out in its timetable? As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) said, "Don't hold your breath." We will believe it when we see it, because Virgin Trains has broken far too many of its promises to us. We should hold the company to account and ensure that it keeps the promises that it made this week, so that passengers in north Wales receive better services.
Chris Ruane: On the issue of improved services, I shall make two specific requests on behalf of two stations in north Wales. One request is from my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), who is concerned that the promise made to him that the trains will stop once or twice a day at Flint will be fulfilled. Will the Minister ensure that Flint, which is probably the third or fourth biggest town in north Wales, becomes a regular stop on the trip down to Euston?
The second request relates to the town of Prestatyn, in my constituency. Its station is currently served once a day from the three trains that go down to London. I would like to see at least two or three stops made when the improved service is introduced in 2004. I would also like the Minister to ensure that there is no slippage in the time scale, and that the promised five trains are delivered on time or ahead of schedule, and that seven trains per day is maintained as a long-term goal.
I shall now focus on the current service that Virgin Trains offers from north Wales. That issue is of great concern to me, to my fellow MPs, and to my fellow passengers who use the service regularly. We have been left with the dross—the leftovers from the Virgin Trains stock. The chief executive admits that we have the worst trains on the Virgin network. Those cast-offs are not good enough for north Wales: there is no hot food available on the trains and, on some of them, the toilets, hot water, heating and air-conditioning systems do not work.
The timetabling of those trains, the delays and punctuality are also of great concern to me, my colleagues, my constituents, visitors to the area and especially to inward investors. I retell the tale of the trip made by the president of Tokai Rika Brothers, the first Japanese company inwardly to invest in my constituency, with that investment being its first inward investment in the whole of Europe. He flew over from Tokyo to London, came up to north Wales on the train and was stopped for two hours in a delay. A car had to go and fetch him and bring him to the ground-breaking turf-cutting ceremony in St. Asaph. That delay could have cost my constituency a multi-million pound investment. That is the effect of the current service that Virgin offers. I give credit to the chief executive Chris Green, who has been very responsive and co-operative in my dealings with him, but I make a plea to him and to the Minister to use their influence to ensure that we get the service to which we are entitled in north Wales.
I shall now focus on my third key issue—station improvements. The rail passenger users group made our group aware of a £400 million Government investment
94WH
for station improvements in the UK. I believe that 10 applications have been made in Wales, nine of them outside north Wales. I have spoken to Chris Green on the matter, and he thinks that we have the worst stations in the whole network. They have not had the investment that they should have had.
Ian Lucas: Does not my hon. Friend find it extraordinary, as I do, that Wrexham, the premier town in north Wales, does not have a functioning passenger information service? Passengers using the station not only cannot see whether trains will be delayed, they cannot hear that from the station master. One is left in splendid isolation on the platform.
Chris Ruane: I have good news for my hon. Friend. Objections to the new customer information system to be installed by Wales and Borders Trains as part of Project Inform, which has been delayed because of the need to obtain listed building consent, have been resolved. Work should commence shortly. It pays to do a bit of research.
First North Western has made a £5 million fund allocation to improve stations in its area: the north of England, Cumbria and north Wales. Some £2.3 million has been spent so far, but only £250,000 has been spent on stations in north Wales over a six-year period. That concerns me. There is still £2.7 million in the pot, and I ask the Minister to ensure that that money is spent by the company—or by any company that takes over from First North Western—and that north Wales gets its fair share. As much as I like the Treasury and the Chancellor, I should not like to see that money go back to them when so much work needs to he done.
I could give some graphic accounts of the impact of lack of investment on stations in north Wales. I shall not name the towns concerned, for fear of embarrassment, but there are stations that, when one steps off the train and goes over the connecting bridges, smell of urine. There is one where urine drips down into offices below, and the staff have had to move out. There has been arson and vandalism, and there is a lack of CCTV and secure parking. Bearing in mind that the coastal towns concerned are some of the largest towns in north Wales —Flint, Colwyn Bay, Bangor, Rhyl and Prestatyn—they deserve better.
I pay tribute to the work of the British Transport police, based in Bangor in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy. They are doing sterling work in improving safety in north Wales. If we seriously want an integrated transport system, we must provide secure parking so that people in my valley, the Vale of Clwyd, can travel from as far as 25 miles away in Ruthin, down to Rhyl, and leave their car safely protected by CCTV and high fences, knowing that it will not be damaged or vandalised in the two or three days for which they are away. That is key. All stations should be equipped with CCTV. I know that several of the nine grants to which I referred earlier have been used for that, especially in towns in south-west Wales. We should demand the same.
Another concern is the lift facilities in my town, Rhyl. I can relate the story of a young paraplegic woman in a wheelchair who stopped in Rhyl at 11 o'clock at night.

95WH
The lift was not working, so she had to go 20 miles down the track to Llandudno and get on the train there to come 20 miles back. That is disgraceful. The lifts should be working and staff should be there, especially to facilitate disabled people alighting at their stops.
In summary, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take up the issues that I have mentioned in the debate and perhaps get back in writing to me, the north Wales group of Labour MPs and the Opposition Members who have attended.
11.19 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) on securing this debate. It is an important subject, which goes beyond passenger services to matters such as inward investment and the crucial link to the western extremity of the European Union—the Republic of Ireland. I congratulate my hon. Friend and the north Wales group of Labour Members on their work. I fear that 10 minutes is not enough time to respond to such an expansive contribution, but I am more than happy to meet that group to pursue each of those matters in much more detail than I can possibly do here. Moreover, many other members of the group could not be here today and I know that the issue is as important for them as for anyone else.
My hon. Friend will know that the Strategic Rail Authority published its final west coast main line strategy this week. It is an important document in terms of quality of service. The strategy includes an enhancement of services to Holyhead, reduced journey times and the use of Voyager and Pendolino trains on the route.
Albert Owen: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. McNulty: I will briefly, but I have only 10 minutes.
Albert Owen: I appreciate that. When my hon. Friend talks about reducing journey times, will he take up the point that I made in an intervention that line speeds, particularly across Anglesey, remain at 75 mph? Journey times need to be reduced across the coast.
Mr. McNulty: As I said, enhancement and improvement are at the core of the west coast main line strategy. There is a strong case for electrification or significant investment in the entire line north of Crewe, but that is a matter for another day and another strategy. I would be happy to discuss that when I meet the group.
Now that the strategy is out for consultation, the SRA has turned its attention to the allocation of capacity on the line. It has recognised that demand would outstrip availability and is keen to ensure a solution that meets the needs of all the different users of the route so far as possible. I obviously do not need to exhort the north Wales group to ensure that it contributes fully to the consultation.
96WH
In producing the draft strategy, the SRA sought input from the entire railway industry. It was important that everyone had their say. The draft strategy envisaged providing capacity for a two-hourly service between Holyhead and London from 2004, equivalent to seven services per day. That was always intended as an initial scenario to be developed, not as a commitment of what was to be delivered. It is also wrong to make the simple assumption that more trains equal a better service.
As the SRA worked on the strategy in greater detail, it became apparent that a service of seven trains a day would be problematic to deliver. The turnaround time of trains—that is, the length of time a train spends at the terminal before embarking on the return journey—would be extremely tight, leaving minimal time for cleaning and maintenance. Clearly, my hon. Friends do not want the totem of seven journeys, but in filthy trains that are badly maintained.
Furthermore, due to the availability of rolling stock, those trains would be made up of four carriages only. That may be sufficient in off-peak hours, but it would not provide adequate capacity in the peak periods. It would mean short trains using the network at peak periods, wasting overall capacity on the route to the detriment of other services.
The SRA took all those issues on board in determining the final strategy. As my hon. Friend the member for Vale of Clwyd pointed out, the strategy for Holyhead is to provide five services daily, compared with the three provided at present, with adequate capacity and timetabling to match demand, for example, by connecting with ferry services to Ireland and providing nine-car trains at the busiest periods. Some of those services will be provided by the Pendolino trains hauled by diesel locomotives from Crewe over track that is not electrified. Others will be worked by the Voyager trains, as was originally envisaged.
The new trains will provide a more comfortable and faster journey with more modern onboard facilities than the rolling stock currently in use. If they do not, I am sure that my hon. Friends will let me know as quickly as possible. All those changes are due to be made in the winter 2004 timetable. That is subject to, as I understand it, the timetabling planning process within the industry. I hope that those changes can be implemented as planned by the winter and I will be happy to discuss that in more detail with my hon. Friends when we meet.
Mrs. Betty Williams: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. McNulty: I shall not give way because I have only five minutes.
Under the revised strategy, overall capacity to north Wales will be greater than would have been delivered through the original seven-train plan because the facility of longer trains will be used more effectively at times when it is needed: during peak hours. The length of journey for the service is also planned to be reduced, from around four-and-half hours at present—no tittering, please—to three hours, fifty minutes. The Strategic Rail Authority has stated that that mix of train type and service will offer the best balance between adequate capacity and frequency, and requires only two Voyager trains to be released from the busy cross-country network, instead of four as originally planned, compensated by the commitment to use Pendolino trains on the route.

97WH
Another key aim of the strategy, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd alluded, is to improve performance on the line. The target is that, from 2008, 90 per cent. of long-distance trains should arrive at their destination within 10 minutes of the scheduled time. The target applies from 2008 because prior to that there will still be renewal and enhancement work on the route. However, interim targets have also been set and 87 per cent. of services should arrive on time from 2004, 88 per cent. from 2006, and 89 per cent. from 2007. Improvements to the punctuality and reliability of local services will also be delivered.
The improved performance will be possible because of the increased capacity on the line, the more reliable infrastructure and trains, and the more resilient timetable pattern. Safety on the line will also be improved through the application of train protection and warning systems, which will reduce the possibility of trains passing signals at danger. New line-side fencing and the removal of level crossings will reduce accidents involving trespassers, pedestrians and road users.
I assure my hon. Friend that I shall pursue the points that he and others have made about stations such as Flint, Holyhead and, if there are outstanding matters, Wrexham, although I am sure that everyone welcomes the good news that he announced about information for local passengers. I accept his wider point about CCTV, proper car parking and other facilities to make the entire journey a fulfilling and comprehensive experience for users of the line.
I understand that Isle of Anglesey county council and Stena Line have set up a Holyhead transport interchange group to consider how better provision can be achieved. The SRA attended the first meeting in April and advised the group that, although its rail passenger partnership fund is suspended, it hopes to relaunch it
98WH
and that it could provide funds if the suggested works were affordable and represented value for money. I trust that the SRA will maintain a close dialogue with the group and continue to offer advice. That is another matter that we can examine in detail when I meet my hon. Friends.
All in all, rail travel on the west coast main line will eventually be transformed. Now that the strategy has been determined, the focus is on implementation of the plan. Much of the engineering work is already in hand or due to start shortly and is on time and to schedule. Key benefits will be delivered from 2004, and by 2006 almost all the renewal and enhancement work will have been completed.
A dedicated communications steering group has been established, including the SRA, Network Rail, and the train and freight operating companies. They will work together as one body to ensure that passengers are aware of future engineering works and so that information is available about alternative services.
I thank my hon. Friend and his colleagues again for raising this important matter. Now that the improvements to the west coast main line are finally coming on stream, we must ensure that each and every aspect of the travel experience is what everyone in north Wales and those who travel between London and Holyhead deserve. I greatly appreciate the chance to discuss those matters today and look forward to meeting my hon. Friend and his colleagues. I hope that on that occasion my hon. Friend will arrive on time and not out of breath. I am sure that he is as grateful as I am to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) for allowing him to draw breath before starting his heroic contribution to this important debate.
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Regional Pay (Public Sector)
2 pm
Adam Price: I am very pleased to have secured this debate on an issue that is of vital concern to millions of public sector workers in Wales and Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom. The Government have made a few fairly oblique references to the idea of regional pay since it was initially floated during last year's comprehensive spending review. The Chancellor gave a vacillating performance when he was grilled recently by the Treasury Committee. I hope that today's debate will be an opportunity for the Economic Secretary to clarify the Government's intentions with regard to regional pay.
Confusion is the hallmark of Government policy and actions at the moment. We have been told by a former Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry that it is not a question of regional pay, but of localised settlements and city-specific weightings. However, the inflation indices that the Government are to produce will be composed on a regional basis, which would seem to suggest otherwise. The Chancellor said in his Budget statement that he would introduce measures to ensure that public service pay systems were more responsive to regional labour market conditions.
From the outset, I must say that the policy is ill conceived, short-sighted and based on false premises, and will have some fairly far-reaching negative consequences if implemented. Those Labour Members who are not here may be forgiven for feeling bewildered as to why the Chancellor wants to go down such a road. After all, it was his predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who talked about the end of the going rate for a job, and national pay bargaining, a policy that was roundly condemned by Labour in opposition.
Last Monday, in the Chancellor's statement on the euro, we were told that as part of the Government's approach to euro entry the UK economy needed to be made more flexible, and that one of the ways of achieving that was to introduce regional pay differentials in the public sector.
Mr. Michael Weir: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern, which perhaps goes beyond the immediate issue of regional pay? Buried amidst the 1,700 pages that the Treasury released last Monday was a policy prescription for people in what it called "contracting regions" to either move away or accept lower pay. Will those policies not result in a disaster for areas like Scotland and Wales? In Scotland there is a projected decline of 500,000 people over the next 40 years. Will such a policy not exacerbate that situation?
Adam Price: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The issue is wider than that of regional pay in the public sector. It also relates to the Government's embrace of neo-liberal attitudes to labour mobility. I will come to that in one second.
The Treasury's paper on economic and monetary union and labour market flexibility refers to the role of regional pay differentials as an element of labour market flexibility, but it is not the only element. Geographical mobility is a factor, but so are employment flexibility
100WH
and functional flexibility which is the ability of the labour force to acquire and apply different skills. Chart 2.4 of the Treasury's paper on labour market flexibility shows that the UK already has a high level of real-wage flexibility—significantly higher than that of Germany, Italy, France or Spain.
The imposition of regional pay differentials in the public sector simply is not required, and is certainly not a priority if the goal is to increase labour market flexibility. That was reiterated by Michael Porter in the recent DTI report on United Kingdom competitiveness, which stated that labour mobility and wage flexibility in the UK are effective. I suggest to the Economic Secretary that if the Government want to increase labour market flexibility they should focus on improving functional flexibility with heavier investment in education, training and lifelong learning.
Mr. Mark Field: The hon. Gentleman referred to the interesting paper by Professor Porter on competitiveness. However, that paper reflected differentials not so much in the public sector as in the private sector, where there are greater pay differentials. If I am lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Benton, I shall give a different perspective, from the viewpoint of London and the south-east. There is a great distinction between markets in the public and private sectors.
Adam Price: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. Professor Porter pointed to the failings of regional economic policy in the UK and stated:
"In the US there is a convergence of prosperity across regions. In the UK there is divergence. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer."
The key point is that according to the Treasury's paper on wage flexibility in the UK, there is no problem. That is a false premise and is not the only piece of sloppy thinking behind the Government's regional pay proposals. Incomes Data Services said—
Dr. Rudi Vis: What does the hon. Gentleman think about London weighting?
Adam Price: London weighting is a long-established convention in public pay setting and goes back many decades. It differs from job to job and the proportion of salary depends on the age and seniority of individuals. It is not that dissimilar to the weighting systems used in other administrative capitals in Europe. The Government are suggesting an expansion to a regional weighting system and a significant increase in the level of enhancement. I shall return to that shortly.
Another false premise behind the Government's policy is the assumption that pay in the private sector is set by local decision making driven by market conditions. Most large companies have UK-wide pay structures with allowances for high living costs in some areas. Barclays bank has central London weighting, but a cashier in Cumbria receives the same pay as a cashier in Kent. The Government are keen to adopt private sector practices, so why do they not adopt the principle of pay parity? It is not true to maintain, as the Treasury attempts to, that the public sector is monolithic in its approach to pay determination. We probably have one

101WH
of the most fragmented public sector pay structures in Europe apart from Sweden. There is a great deal of flexibility in the public sector, not just with London weighting, to deal with difficulties associated with the high cost of living in different areas. What there is not is an appetite to return to the failed policies of local level pay setting—for example, as in national health service trusts under the previous Government and grant-maintained schools. The NHS in Wales and Scotland is still obliged to cope with the problems created by mistrust and poor morale through equal pay disputes because some workers are contracted to the local trust and others work for the NHS centrally. We need only look at the chaos created by 36 different rates of pay for drivers throughout the railway industry to see the negative effects of local pay setting.
It is no wonder that the main civil service union, the Public and Commercial Services Union, is trying to recreate a national pay framework because of the anomalies that have resulted from bargaining on a departmental basis. We see similar trends elsewhere. For example, the university sector has brought together 10 different bargaining groups into one integrated pay structure. As for further education in England, a new national forum on pay modernisation has been agreed as a way forward, after years of chaos because of the local pay arrangements.
It is not only the DTI that is opposed to the regional pay proposals, but the trade unions. Unison, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers and the Communication Workers Union have all voiced their opposition to the plans. Recently, Angharad Davies of the Royal College of Nursing in Wales said:
"We already experienced local pay under the Tories when nurses pay went down. We are therefore totally against regional pay. It would not be an advantage to the people of Wales. It would only serve to be an advantage to people in London."
I should point out in the interests of clarity that Angharad is, to the best of my knowledge, an active and prominent member of the Labour party.
The National Health Service Confederation is against regional pay, as is the local government employers' organisation. Moreover, on local pay differentiation for teachers, which the Treasury is pushing for adoption as early as next year, the Department for Education and Skills told the School Teachers Review Body that
"national pay scales have value in promoting the profession to potential entrants. How would the advantages of a local element to pay be set against the loss of clarity in every school having slightly different rates of pay. How could (it be ensured that) variations occur for genuine reasons and do not simply drive wage inflation because of poaching and bidding wars between schools?"
I come now to another false premise.
Mr. Field: We shall work on the first rather than any subsequent false premise if we may at this juncture. Why does the hon. Gentleman believe that it is the trade unions that are so vehemently against the proposal? Does he not believe, as I do, that it would undermine the power of trade unions at a national level to have local pay bargaining that took account of local factors?
Adam Price: As I said, the NHS Confederation and the employers' organisation have voiced their concern
102WH
about moves towards regional pay setting, too. For example, Sweden is the only major European country that has gone down the route of decentralised pay setting at local level. There is a large increase in wage inequality in the public sector in different parts of the country. That is a legitimate worry for employee representatives, but I listened with interest to what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Weir: Is there not a dichotomy at the heart of what the Chancellor is proposing? He introduced the concept of regional pay on the basis of regional indices and said that there would still be national pay bargaining, but that the actual amount paid would be based on regional indices. That is different from what the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) is proposing in respect of local pay bargaining.
Adam Price: It is fair to say that regional pay is much cloaked in confusion, which is why we are all so keen to hear what the Economic Secretary has to say. The Treasury's own figures show that in some cases, intra-regional differences are as great in terms of wages as are inter-regional differences. It is difficult to see how regional indices in respect of cost of living data will help to address the more localised problems.
I refer to another problem with the Treasury's position. Recruitment and retention difficulties and the lack of affordable housing are not confined to London and the south-east of England. According to the Government's commissioned study from the university of Newcastle, there are no significant regional differences, for example, in the degree of job satisfaction reported by graduates working in the public sector. That does not confirm the hypothesis of a south-east-specific problem.
According to another piece of recent research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, in a league table of the least affordable areas of England for housing, 15 were located in the south-west, just four in the south-east and three in the eastern region. The research showed that there are no fewer than 33 local authority districts in England in which a small home costs over five times the average annual income of a local working household with earners in their 20s or 30s. That confirms evidence from the Council of Mortgage Lenders that young first-time buyers are currently having more difficulties buying property in the south-west of England than in the south-east.
The situation in respect of vacancies in the public sector, which is another key element of the Treasury's argument, is much more mixed than the Government's rationale for regional pay would suggest. Their figures show that the highest level of vacancies for key public sector workers in London is not, as the hypothesis would lead one to expect, in the areas of highest cost, but in those of lowest cost—the most deprived areas. That suggests that the drivers are not merely finance-related.
Mr. Field: On a point of information, the reality is that London is made up of a series of villages—relatively small areas, a short distance apart. People commute to places such as my constituency—a relatively wealthy

103WH
authority by any standards—often from outside Greater London. Therefore it is fair to say that the hot spots of unemployment in places such as Newham and Hackney will attract few staff, but people who live five or six miles away will be happy to commute 10 or 15 miles beyond that side into other parts of London. It is for that reason, above all, that some of the poorest areas in London are most denuded of public sector staff.
Adam Price: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his elucidation of London's geography, which I am still grappling with, two years after moving here to live during the week.
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, as there is a complex relationship between vacancy rates that are measured locally and travel-to-work areas, which are much more loosely defined. It is fair to say that there is a concentration of vacancy problems in the deprived areas of London, which mirrors the data that we have on vacancy rates, for example, for hospital doctors, radiographers, pharmacists, dentists and, in some areas, GPs. For some categories, such as hospital doctors, radiographers and pharmacists, the vacancy rate in London is well below the United Kingdom average. The rate is very high in places such as Wales and the north of England. It is probably the deprivation and the disamenity of living in those areas that is the problem for some of those key workers, rather than affordability.
The Government's cross-cutting review of the public sector labour market concluded:
"While cost may be a factor in explaining some vacancies in the public sector there is a complex web of other factors, including the unattractiveness of working in deprived areas. Put another way, if there were a direct relationship between cost and pay, in high cost areas one might expect the highest vacancy rates to be among the lowest paid occupations, but that is not the NHS experience."
We could argue, therefore, that if the Government were considering enhancements to public sector pay, perhaps they should start by concentrating on pay premiums for those working in deprived areas, whether they be in London—where there are pockets of deprivation—or in south Wales, the north-east or the central belt in Scotland. That approach is used for the regional pay premium, where not only the cost of living but the amount of amenity or disamenity of living in a particular area is calculated.
There is a more generalised problem of vacancies in the public sector, which is related to the fact that over many years there has been erosion of pay in the public sector in relation to that in the private sector. According to an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development study carried out in the year 2000, the United Kingdom had the worst ratio of gross average earnings in the public sector to gross average earnings in the private sector of any of the countries studied, apart from Hungary.
To be fair, the Government have of late closed the gap to some extent, by means of higher baseline settlements and a rash of recruitment and retention allowances. However, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, in London the wage gap between the public and private sectors has deepened substantially over many years. In the rest of the UK, private sector pay has not taken off
104WH
to the same degree. That in large part reflects the realities of the north-south divide that the Government denied until recently.
Unfortunately, that policy on regional pay is precisely the wrong response to the problem of the north-south divide. It attempts to manage the problem, instead of dealing with its underlying cause. The problem is not that people in the public sector in Wales, the north of England or Scotland have paid too much, relatively, to public sector workers in London; it is that the public sector in those areas is paying too little compared with the private sector in the south-east. That merely demonstrates that the Government have not done enough to correct the wider imbalance between the south-east and the rest of the UK.
I strongly suggest that the solution to overcrowding, congestion, transport problems and high-cost issues in delivering health, education and policing in south-east England will not be solved by pay differentials in the public sector, because the problem and solution lie not in the labour market but in the housing market. The failure to regulate and develop the private rented sector, the collapse of social housing and the phasing out of employer-provided property in the NHS, the police force and the Prison Service have all had a negative effect.
The Government's starter home initiative, which provides £250 million, focused principally in the south-east, to help public sector workers deal with spiralling housing costs, is beginning to have some effect, according to the London Housing Federation. That initiative, and others backed by the Mayor of London, is beginning to improve the provision of affordable housing in the south-east of England. It is through such policies that we shall address that issue.
The problem with the policy on regional pay, from my perspective, is that it will be a serious blow to those who use and work in the public services in the rest of the country. In last year's spending review, the Government pointed at pay differentials of 50 per cent. in the private sector between different parts of the country, the implication being that those differentials should simply be replicated in the public sector. That was reinforced by the Chancellor recently, when he sent members of the Treasury Committee a copy of a polemic by Professor Andrew Oswald of Warwick university, simply and directly entitled, "London's Public Sector Workers need to be paid 50 per cent. more than those in the North".
I am not sure whether the Chancellor was simply being provocative. Perhaps the Economic Secretary could answer this simple question: is it the Government's policy that, in the long term, public sector workers in inner London will be paid 50 per cent. more than their counterparts in Wales or the north of England? It should be pointed out that the figure of 50 per cent. is at the extreme end of the spectrum, and compares the north-east and Wales with London.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): The answer is no.
Adam Price: Well, I am sure that public sector workers will breathe a huge sigh of relief for now, but one wonders why the Chancellor spoke so approvingly of Professor Oswald's paper. It would be useful to quote a little more widely from it. The Professor went on to say—both in that paper and others:

105WH
"More public cash has to be allocated to areas that are in driving distance from Big Ben"
and
"National pay scales have to go. Forced on Britain long ago by trade unions and bureaucrats, and today held in place…by political pressure from the North and Wales, they are doing real damage to our nation."
That is what Professor Oswald, who has an imprimatur from the Chancellor, had to say. Severe damage would be done to the nation that I represent if we were to follow his suggestion.
Headline pay is obviously a powerful attraction, and there would be a natural tendency for the able and ambitious to move to where the highest salaries were paid if such a policy were introduced. There would be an inevitable drift of people to where those better-paid jobs were. That would put public services in places such as Wales, Scotland and the north of England under greater pressure than they are today.
There is another element: the effect on local and regional economies in the most disadvantaged parts of the UK. UK-wide levels of pay act as an economic stabiliser between the nations and regions of the UK. They redistribute wealth between more and less prosperous areas, and in the absence of effective regional policy that is an important factor in reducing the differentials in prosperity throughout the UK. We live in a country that has, by the Government's admission, the highest level of regional disparity of any EU state. If we moved to regional rates of pay in the public sector, the Government would remove one of the stabilisers that reduces regional differences. The Treasury cannot say that we need stronger regional economies, and then weaken the spending power of the biggest employers in those nations and regions.
Let us not forget that public sector employers are an important benchmark in their local economies for determining local pay in the private sector. Places such as Wales, the north-east and Northern Ireland, which will be most affected by this proposal for regional pay, are already languishing at the bottom of the UK wages league table. Perversely and bizarrely, if we adopted regional pay rates with a uniform tax rate across the UK, people from poorer parts of the country would subsidise public sector pay scales in wealthier regions. That would be completely unacceptable.
One is supposed to assume that the driving force behind this bizarre policy is an attempt to keep a lid on galloping wage inflation in the public sector. Clearly, the Government are worried about groups aping the firefighters and playing catch-up. One way the Treasury appears to think that it can insulate itself from that is to limit substantial real-terms increases to the most affluent regions. The Treasury's position is that it wants national pay awards to be more modest, to make possible what it sees as a more targeted approach to pay in hot spots where there are real recruitment and retention difficulties. However, the Government are clearly seeking to hold down pay demands from workers in the west and the north by claiming that the cost of living is cheaper. As Kevin Rowan, regional secretary of the northern TUC, said:
"This is a green light to employers to negotiate lower salaries in the North than in the South."
106WH
Who will be the hardest hit? It will be the lowest paid in the lowest paid regions; in particular it will be women, who have relied on centralised pay bargaining in the public sector to reduce the gender pay gap in recent years.
In the 1980s, Reagan tried to drive down public sector pay when he introduced a policy of locality-based pay bargaining for the public sector, which was based on comparability with the private sector. Now, a Labour Government in the United Kingdom are adopting the same Reaganomics. From Cornwall to Cardiff and Cowdenbeath, regional pay will mean that employers will pay less and local economies will suffer. It will mean a deterioration in the quality of local services as key workers leave to higher paying areas. That is an inappropriate response to the problems of the south-east of England, which are much more fundamental than the policy suggests. One can only assume that we are looking at merely a whimsy on the Chancellor's part—or perhaps it was a crafty little spanner that he wanted to throw in the works in relation to the UK's entry into the euro. I hope that the Economic Secretary can confirm that the Government have no intention of going down the absurd route of regional pay scales in the public sector.
2.29 pm
Mr. Mark Field: I congratulate the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) on introducing this wonderful, interesting and timely debate. It is certainly a live issue in London, as it is in the regions, which is evidenced by the fact that about 50 per cent. of the Welsh nationalists and 20 per cent. of the Scottish nationalists are in the Chamber today.
I want to touch on a number of the issues that have been raised by the hon. Gentleman, and I should be interested to get some clarification from the Economic Secretary as to the thinking of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on these matters, because the statement a couple of weeks ago did not make it clear precisely what was intended, and I suspect that quite a lot of water will have to flow under the bridge before we fully appreciate what regional pay bargaining may mean in the months and years ahead.
The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr made a lively speech. Last year, we went to America and saw how regional and federal government worked there. That was an eye-opener for me—and, I think, for the hon. Gentleman. There is a suggestion that we might take one step forward and try some kind of federalisation as far as the funding is concerned. This debate goes beyond the narrow aspects of pay differentials within different regions to the regional government that is being put in place by the current Labour Administration. We already have a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh Assembly and a level of devolution—although a narrow level—in London, and if we had regional government across the whole of England this sort of debate would be had almost daily.
I hope that you, Mr. Benton, and the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr will forgive me if I focus most of my comments on central London, because there are some distinct London factors. I was amused to hear the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that a change in

107WH
the current regime would amount to a cross-subsidy from the poorer areas to the richer areas. I think that the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) will agree that London Members feel that there is already a lot of cross-subsidy, but that it goes in the wrong direction: London contributes £20 billion a year to the regions as a whole, but it has an increasingly beleaguered public sector, and housing and many other things are unaffordable.
One need only look at a map of the United Kingdom, and at the far-flung rural constituencies that are in Wales and Scotland, to understand my next point. The whole of greater London—which has 74 constituencies—could probably fit within East Carmarthen and Dinefwr. For that reason, it is a much more localised market. Travelling is an everyday part of life for people who live and work in Greater London, but many who live in the poorer boroughs will work only five or six miles away, in much wealthier areas.
I turn to my own perspective. I suspect that the poor Economic Secretary will find himself beleaguered on all fronts. I am also critical of the Government although, I suspect, from the opposite side of the political divide from the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr. It seems to me that, in essence, there is an unholy alliance between a Government who are dominated by Scottish and northern English Members of Parliament and their trade union friends, which has resulted in a rapid diminution in the quality of life of many Londoners, who find that their hospitals, schools, police and other public services are increasingly denuded of staff because it is impossible for them to live in or even near central London.
The current system of national pay bargaining may suit the Labour party and its friends in the trade unions but it is something of a disaster for many of London's workers and residents, whom I represent. There is a very inadequate system of London weighting. Often, that amounts to as little as £3,000 a year, which utterly fails to take account of the big differences in the quality of life and cost of living between London and other cities. On graduating, a junior teacher will earn £2,000 or £3,000 more for working in a central London school—and therefore being expected to live in Greater London, or perhaps just outside it in the home counties—than a teacher in Sunderland or Liverpool. That takes no realistic account of the substantial differentials in the cost of living between those areas.
I was very interested to hear what seemed to many of my constituents to be warm words from the Chancellor on the differentials and the cost of living. My main concern was to know where and, more important, when the baseline would be drawn. As the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr said, there is a specific problem for London. Although I accept that the world does not start and end in London, as a representative of this constituency it might be understandable if I took a contrary view.
There is a problem that is specific to London that should not necessarily be thought of as extending into the south-east. Over the past 10 or 15 years the differentials to which the hon. Gentleman referred have, without a doubt, become ever greater between both
108WH
private and public sector workers in the capital. Moreover, the problem of the cost of living faces both public and private sector workers.
Dr. Vis: Would the hon. Gentleman extend London weighting to pensions?
Mr. Field: I am sure that if I attempted to go down that track you would rule me entirely out of order, Mr. Benton. Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green has allowed me a few more seconds of thin king time. I am sure that we shall discuss that matter in the months and years ahead.
It strikes me that pay scales alone need to mirror to an extent the private sector, in which wages take account of regional variations in the cost of living and the quality of life—that is an integral part of living in London.
There are always unholy political alliances on this matter. I have some sympathy, on this narrow point alone, with the Mayor of London. Those are not words that I will utter too frequently. There is a sense that the Chancellor should be paying up. We have seen this year the gerrymandering of the funding formula for local government. Westminster city council is not a typical local authority; for example, its uniform business rate raises some £850 million a year—almost £1 billion—and yet only £72 million is returned to it from central Government. I appreciate that that is a slightly unfair comparison, because it is by no means typical, but many London authorities feel that they are paying an enormous amount of money into central coffers and seeing little in return.
Adam Price: Would the hon. Gentleman not accept that many of the problems that he mentioned surrounding public sector workers in London could be addressed through a more generous pay settlement overall? I know that he loves America very much. In that country public sector workers throughout the land get a premium of 15 per cent., on average, over private sector workers. Would not such an approach deal with the problem in London and the south-west, and in other areas?
Mr. Field: I confess that I spent the first 18 years of my working life in the private sector, running my own business. Of course, having joined the public sector in the past two years, my perspective is somewhat different from the one that I might have had in the previous decade and a half. My instinct is that we need to give some sensible thought to how the public sector is rewarded. Some fundamental regional differences must be taken into account.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree, given his perspective on the lack of powers of the Welsh Assembly, that the fundamental issue is that the UK is a highly centralised country, not least in terms of financing. We were all well aware of things before the secret notes of that famous Granita restaurant meeting some nine or 10 years ago came to light. It is quite clear that centralisation has become ever more prevalent. I accept that such criticism could equally be planted against my own party, whose 18-year Administration came to an end in 1997. Ultimately, the real issue is the enormous power in the hands of the Chancellor of the

109WH
Exchequer as far as the finance is concerned. We can debate the projects that are close to our hearts—be they infrastructure projects in Wales or London—until the cows come home, but it will make relatively little difference until a proper finance-raising power is in the hands of locally elected politicians.
I want to consider affordable housing, which the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr touched on, in more detail. Affordable housing has been a major issue in London over the past few years. Affordable housing schemes are insufficient. Indeed, by giving the impression of action on the differentials between the public and private sectors, and the differentials within the UK, they can be counter-productive.
The Mayor of London betrayed his almost total ignorance of economics with his plan to insist that 50 per cent. of all new development be affordable housing. The London economy has begun to slow down ahead of the game compared with many other parts of the UK, and developers are simply sitting on their hands. In the past year or two, there has been evidence that large scale development projects have gone on hold and that developers are taking the view that they will wait until the economy starts to pick up rather than run the risk of having to build 50 per cent. affordable housing on any land that they want to develop.
In my constituency, it is clear that the costs of even the most modest housing, such as former local authority housing, are astronomical. Even private sector workers in the City of London are unable to get a foothold on the property ladder and many of them must move into the suburbs or even beyond. London house prices are nothing new, and it is fair to say that any booming city requires a booming property market. When the property market begins to fall it is a clear indication that an economic downturn is on the way.
When it comes to affordable housing, key workers must include many of those in the private sector because the divide is not only between the private and public sectors. Shopkeepers and caretakers are part and parcel of the glue of a local community. Anyone who represents an urban constituency will realise that we must maintain those community values. Above all, key workers need a free market, which means comparable pay rates for London public sector workers.
I support the hon. Gentleman in securing the debate. He will appreciate from my comments that we agree on less than we might, but the issue is none the less important and will vex us during much of our political lives. I look forward to hearing the Economic Secretary give us an indication of the Chancellor's thinking. I can appreciate why the notion of local pay bargaining has caused such concern, but we must have some more meat on the bones to determine precisely how the policy will operate. From a London perspective, I should be interested to know whether regional pay would be backdated to ensure a baseline, which would mean a significant cash injection for those London public sector workers who currently find themselves in such difficult straits.
2.43 pm
Mr. Michael Weir: I congratulate the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) on bringing forward this important debate.
110WH
The question of regional pay was first mooted by the Chancellor in the pre-Budget report. At that time, the policy went down like a lead balloon. It is curious that the issue resurfaced last Monday in the debate on the euro. Perhaps the Chancellor has introduced a poison pill into the euro debate, because regional pay will be a huge issue in Scotland, Wales and north-east England. Arguing for slashing public sector pay in Scotland, Wales and the regions will sabotage much of the euro debate. The slogan, "Vote for the euro and get lower pay" will not go down well in many areas.
The issue is serious because it will affect almost 7 million public sector workers throughout the UK, 653,000 of whom live in Scotland. Although we have heard much about London, it is worth remembering that the Office for National Statistics labour force survey found that in the UK as a whole, 23 per cent. of workers are public sector workers. In London, the figure is 21.6 per cent., but in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the north of England it is much higher. Regional pay for public sector workers will hit those areas most seriously. Those economies rely much more on public sector workers than do the economies of London and the south-east.
The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) introduced the question of pay in the private sector. The Government are fond of saying that unemployment has gone down in all regions. To an extent that is true, but it does not show that pay in many regions is much lower than in others. For example, in my area, Angus, unemployment has gone down but we are struggling with a low-wage economy. We are not seeing growth in the economy because the money is not there. Public sector workers in Angus, other parts of Scotland and many other areas are important because the fact that their pay is national means that they can inject a great deal of money into local economies that would not otherwise be there. This is a huge issue in Scotland, and I am surprised to see that not one Scottish Labour Member is present to debate it.
As I mentioned in an intervention, the issue goes much further than pay. Close examination of the Treasury's 1,700 published pages shows that it is part of an even more insidious policy prescription for the economies of Scotland, Wales and the regions. Buried in one of Monday's 18 publications is a proposal that if the economy is performing poorly in one region, the answer is for people to move to another region. That has extremely serious implications for Scotland. It is projected that there will be a decline in the population of 500,000 people during the next 40 years. From the highland clearances, we are now coming to the lowland clearances. That is serious for the continuation of the economy and for the whole nation of Scotland.
That policy prescription goes far beyond Norman Tebbit's "Get on your bike" prescription and threatens yet more people. It is worth noting the exact terms of what is said in the EU labour market flexibility document:
"Adjustment in the labour market primarily consists of ensuring a smooth transfer of labour out of contracting regions, industries or sectors and into expanding ones. If the unemployment rate in one market segment is high then there are two key mechanisms through which adjustment can take place: either relative wages across these segments can adjust or labour can move."

111WH
That is, wages can decrease in areas such as Scotland or the people can move to the overheated economy of south-east England.
I have to say to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster that in that scenario, the housing market in London and elsewhere would be even worse. One reason for that housing market is that people in the past have gravitated towards areas such as London where there has been employment, from areas such as Scotland, Wales and northern England, where there has been large-scale unemployment. That has contributed to the problem. If we reach a situation in which higher wages are paid in London, that may exacerbate the problem. In any expanding economy where there is more money coming in through wages, house price inflation is inevitable.
The Minister really must consider that. As I pointed out in an intervention, we are not talking about local pay bargaining. When questioned on regional pay in debate, the Chancellor said:
"I referred to the maintenance of the national bargaining framework, not to its abolition, but I said that, within the national bargaining framework, we now have to recognise, for example, conditions in London and the south-east, where, because of high inflation or high house prices, the cost of living for workers must be recognised in the wage bargaining formulae that are agreed."—[Official Report, 9 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 429.]
That seems to mean that we will still have national pay bargaining. For example, the firemen may have bargained for 7 per cent. in the first year, but their pay will be based on regional indices. As a result, it will be worth more in London than in Scotland. We will have a differential in the actual pay, if not in pay bargaining. That seems to go against what the hon. Gentleman was saying. It would have serious implications, and it certainly will not help the economy of Scotland.
Adam Price: It may interest the hon. Gentleman to know that that very point was made in the submission made by the Department for Education and Skills to the School Teachers Review Body. It said that far from introducing local flexibility, local or regional pay could create a more rigid system as it would be based on regional cost-of-living indices and other data.
Mr. Weir: That is true, but the issue goes further than that. The suggestion is that regional pay will somehow help recruitment in London. I am sorry to keep referring to the comments of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster—they were of great interest—about the NHS being denuded of staff, but it does not happen only in London. Scotland's health service has serious problems because of a shortage of nurses. During the Scottish elections, which took place in May, the question was raised of whether nurses in Scotland should be paid more so that we were sure of there always being enough. However, if we have regional pay, nurses in Scotland—or policemen and firefighters—will be paid less than those in the booming areas like London, and that will exacerbate the problem.
Even if we have regional indices, the way in which they are drawn will be important. Regions have hot spots, so how can we decide where a boundary should run? I have to say that the hon. Member for East
112WH
Carmarthen and Dinefwr went much further north than Cowdenbeath. There will be serious problems. For instance, Edinburgh will be a hot spot because of the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, which has resulted in a booming economy, particularly in the housing market.
Although unemployment in Scotland has fallen, we are struggling with a low-wage economy. Under the present Chancellor, the Scottish economy has grown at half the rate of the UK as a whole, which is the worst record since the early days of the unlamented Thatcher Government. According to the Office for National Statistics, Scotland has the highest unemployment rate among the nations of the UK, and the second highest claimant count and the highest unemployment rate among the UK regions.
We are told that the economy in the UK as a whole is growing, but Scotland is teetering on the brink of recession. Although its economy is not booming, like London's, it suffers many of the same problems. The answer is not to cut the wages of workers in Scotland by introducing regional pay. Many of the economic policies followed by the Chancellor have been based on the fact that London and the south-east are overheating, but we should not forget that other regions are not overheating but are facing hard times—in some instances, very hard times.
In many ways, Scottish workers should be paid more to ensure that we keep them in Scotland. We should inject money into the public sector to give us flexibility. The private sector already has some flexibility because of the economic conditions of previous years. However, as the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr said, the fact that regions are side by side can cause problems. For instance, a rail company in north-east England was paying its drivers much more than those working in Scotland. As a result, the Scottish drivers were being lured away, which led to a serious loss of workers on the Scottish railway, a near breakdown in services and a problem with workers' pay.
I was delighted to hear that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster had been converted to the idea that the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly should have tax-raising powers. I entirely agree. The way forward is not to look at regional pay, but to look at what we might call a third way. Rather than asking valuable public service workers to be paid less or asking people to move away, the Government should give Scotland the powers to compete so that it can grow its economy and give people more opportunity. Growth is the key. If we can grow the Scottish economy and ensure that workers in both the public and private sectors are paid greater rates, the economy will benefit.
Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right when he says that the issue is about growth. However, tax-raising powers already exist in the Scottish Parliament settlement. Taxes can be raised by as much as 3 per cent. If it were not for the effects of the much discredited and outdated Barnett formula, we could have a level playing field. All 74 London MPs—55 of whom are Labour—would entirely agree with that. We

113WH
should like to see a level playing field for the moneys that are raised here in the capital and with which we cross-subsidise the rest of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Weir: The hon. Gentleman is following a completely different argument. The regions subsidise London in many ways because most Government Departments and spending are based in London. That is an argument that I will happily have with the hon. Gentleman on another day. As for the tax-raising power of the Scottish Parliament, it is a power to vary taxes. The hon. Gentleman may not know this, but if the Scottish Parliament raises taxes it impacts on the block grant, which means that the increases would have no effect at all.
The Scottish Parliament needs its own tax-raising powers so that money raised in Scotland can go towards dealing with the structural problems of the Scottish economy. Instead of looking at regional pay, we should perhaps be looking at regional taxation and differential business taxation in Scotland that would allow Scottish businesses to grow. Scottish businesses pay the same rate as businesses in central London, but they have nothing like the same economic activity.
As has been mentioned, the Government have provided little detail about the question of regional pay. This seems to have been a political hand-grenade, lobbed into the euro debate for the Chancellor's own reasons. Will the Economic Secretary tell us a little more about exactly what is being proposed and about the time scale for regional pay? We are told that it is part of the preparation for the euro. The Chancellor, or perhaps the Prime Minister, has insisted that it not be ruled out in the current Parliament. Will regional pay indices be introduced within the next two years? How will these regions be set up? Will regional pay be based on Scotland, Wales and the English regions, or does the Chancellor have something else in mind? Has he thought through the hot-spot problems that will occur in each region?
How many of Scotland's 653,000 public sector workers would be affected by the Chancellor's plan? How, when Scotland's economy has grown at only half the rate of the UK under this Labour Parliament, would paying people less in rural communities such as mine in Angus, the highlands and islands and the rest of Tayside help to turn the Scottish economy around? When Scotland relies much more, like Wales and the north of England, on public sector employment to provide economic stability, how will cutting wages and taking the money out of these economies help the economy to grow and make Scotland the place it should be? The answer, of course, is to give the power to the Scottish Parliament. I cannot see the Economic Secretary agreeing to that today, but we will keep at him.
2.59 pm
Mr. David Laws: I am delighted to take part in the debate. I genuinely thank the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) for raising the issue and giving us the opportunity to discuss Government policy on it. It is an extremely important matter, with implications for large parts of the United Kingdom, and this is one of the first opportunities that we have had to debate it in detail.
114WH
Having commended the hon. Gentleman, I shall, unfortunately, disagree with virtually every point that he made, other than his comments about the need for us all to deal with the structural issues that explain pay differentials across the country. On that matter, there is much common ground. I also wish to raise questions about the Government's policy and to try to flush out a little more detail than we have been provided with of late.
The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) said that the Chancellor threw a political hand-grenade into the debate when he announced in the Budget that
"remits for pay review bodies and for public sector workers, including the civil service, will include a stronger local and regional dimension".—[Official Report, 9 April 2003: Vol. 403, c. 283.]
There was perhaps a certain amount of briefing to newspapers to hype up the significance of that statement, in order to attract attention to what the Government perceived as a free market initiative in the Budget, which did not have much good news for the business sector or for much of the rest of the country.
It seemed a relatively short time after 9 April that various questions were posed about the Government's policy, not least because the Chancellor was trying to explain that he would hold on to national bargaining while at the same time bringing in a regional element. It will be interesting to see how he manages to do that.
The conflict between those two objectives was highlighted very well only days after the Budget in an article in the Financial Times on 22 April by the reporter Jean Eaglesham:
"Gordon Brown's Budget call for regional pay awards for public sector workers is unlikely to be realised in practice, Alan Johnson, the employment relations minister, has admitted. Any geographical variations in pay are likely to be very localised, such as specific city weightings."
The then Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions is quoted as saying:
"I'm pretty sure this won't develop into a regional pay argument, with the government insisting on different pay rates in Yorkshire and Humber to North Lincolnshire, not least because staff will then migrate across the Humber Bridge".
I am not sure that I agree with him or his grasp of economics, but he seemed to have a different conception of the Chancellor's intentions than everyone else did. He went on to say that significant regional pay variations would create serious problems and then stated:
"I don't see the need for anybody falling to the floor sobbing over a discussion document … The issue has been misrepresented."
It sounds almost as though there is division between the Chancellor and other Ministers. Such division was highlighted further by a speech by the Secretary of State for Scotland on 16 April. She stated:
"The part of the Chancellor's speech that set the heather alight in Scotland was the reference to a stronger local and regional dimension for pay review bodies and for public sector workers … The Budget was not about ending national pay bargaining. Absolutely not. What it was about was ensuring that we have more local pay focus"—
whatever that means—
"to take account of local economic circumstances."
By securing the debate, the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr has provided an opportunity for the Economic Secretary to flush out the

115WH
Government's policy and to explain what appear to be differences between Ministers on the issue. There may even be uncertainty in the Treasury about the matter. When the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was asked in a written parliamentary question on 1 May to explain the policy on regional pay and regional price indices and how it would be implemented in practice, he repeated the statement that the Chancellor had already made and added simply that further details would be announced in the coming months. The Government have a great deal of fleshing out to do in that area.
Adam Price: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the new policy on the posts of Secretary of State for Scotland and Secretary of State for Wales shows the shape of the Government's thinking on regional pay—two jobs for the price of one?
Mr. Laws: I certainly agree that that shows that there is incoherence in the Government. I can agree on that, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me that common ground.
I shall say why the Government are right to head in the direction of more flexibility in pay, even if we are not quite sure what the direction is. To the extent that the Government's policy reflects a desire for more flexibility on pay, whether on a regional or local basis, it is sensible. I favour that for three reasons, with which I would have thought that hon. Members from nationalist parties had some sympathy.
First, the Liberal Democrats favour decentralisation and devolution of decision making. We do not see why there needs to be a rigid national pay system throughout the United Kingdom. We want the regions, nations and local communities to be given more ability to set their own pay rates. We should like that to be based on a system of raising finance locally. That would give the regions, nations and local areas genuine powers to raise their own revenue, so that they were in a position to take those decisions.
The second argument in favour of the Government's move towards greater flexibility is the flipside of the argument advanced by the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr. Such a move is fairer in many cases. It does not seem to have registered with him, if I can put this reasonably and not provocatively, that the unfairness that he thinks the system will introduce exists at present. If very poorly paid workers in London have to pay extremely high housing and other costs, their disposable income may be much lower than that of someone living in another part of the country where the cost pressures are much less. Flexibility will deal with that unfairness in the existing system.
The third reason is that my party favours better public services, and in some parts of the country we cannot have better public services unless we have the staff to man them. It is obvious that in some parts of the country there are quite serious public sector staff shortages. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) referred to that. Let us consider the vacancy rates, the data on the proportion of expenditure that goes on agency staff in London compared with the rest of the country, and the economic statistics that explain private sector wage differentials, to which the hon.
116WH
Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr referred. The differences in costs and private sector pay are significant and the shortages of public sector workers that are created in some areas as a consequence are very serious.
Mr. Weir: How does the hon. Gentleman explain the shortages of public sector workers in areas where those pressures do not exist? As I have said, there is a serious shortage of nurses in many areas of Scotland, but not because of the problem that he describes. How does he explain that? It is not purely a London or southern problem.
Mr. Laws: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is a problem across regions. Part of that will be due to local labour market conditions, which are tight in many areas of the country because we have a fairly fully employed economy in many areas. The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr referred to some of the other reasons why there might be pay pressures and shortages of key staff in particular areas. I am certainly not arguing that we should not deal with those issues. That is important, but pay is fundamental, too.
I am conscious that I have a limited time to speak, but I want to make a few more points before concluding. We are talking about a number of specific regions. Introducing greater regional flexibility is not likely in practice to mean big differentials between all regions. The hon. Gentleman referred to the paper by Andrew Oswald that compares private sector wage differentials across different parts of the country. It shows that there are particular problems in central London, inner London, outer London and the rest of the south-east, although, as we have discussed, there will be localised problems within regions, which may require action on pay differentials.
I urge the Government to flesh out how the Chancellor's policy will be implemented in practice. They should tell us more about how the regional inflation figures will be produced and whether the data that currently come out of the Office for National Statistics will be changed, owing to the work that is being done on pay. We should also like the Government to say whether they will at some stage give more powers to local areas and to regions to raise revenue, so that they are in a position to fund any pay differentials and to deal with the issues of fairness and scarcity of key employees in public services.
A range of fundamental issues needs to be dealt with if we are to tackle the shortage of public sector employees in certain parts of the country. The length of this debate does not allow us to discuss those issues, but the Government are right to examine flexibility at local and regional levels, in order to deal with the problems in public services in some parts of the country. The Government also need to deal with the issue of fairness for many workers.
3.10 pm
Mr. Howard Flight: I congratulate the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) on securing the debate. It is on important territory, so I am surprised that there are apparently no Labour Members here other than the Economic Secretary.

117WH
At the heart of the matter is the question of what the Government's agenda is. In his Budget speech, the Chancellor announced that he was planning to introduce regional price indices that would demonstrate differences in regional inflation rates. He said that the economy was
"better placed to recognise local and regional conditions in pay, such as the extra costs for retention and recruitment that arise in London and the south-east, especially for the low-paid."
He added that the
"remits for pay review bodies and for public sector workers, including the civil service, will include a stronger local and regional dimension".—[Official Report, 9 April 2003; Vol. 403, c. 283.]
If he did not intend to go beyond such things as regional and London weightings, why say that? It is not at all clear what the Government are looking to change. Major differences have been pointed out between local and regional pay arrangements. The public sector unions registered pretty considerable opposition at first, at least to what they thought they heard.
As a matter of principle, it is entirely correct that part of the programme of improving delivery of public services involves greater employment flexibility of terms of employment and pay. However, that did not seem to be the Chancellor's agenda. The spending review last year stated that
"pay must also be allowed to vary at the local level, according to local pressures. In the private sector pay differentials of up to 50 per cent. exist between different parts of the country. Unless public sector organisations take these differentials into account, service quality will be at risk and both employees and service users in large parts of the country will suffer.'
Is that the basis on which the Government seek to move forward?
If one looks at the current state of play in public sector pay, it becomes clear that the Government's initiatives to move away from national pay structures—if that is in fact their objective—will be fought tooth and nail by public sector unions. How does the national health "Agenda for Change" reflect the Chancellor's announcement? What progress is being made in the light of the announcement that foundation hospitals cannot vary their pay if that leads to poaching from the rest of the health service? The proposed pay reform for the national health service agenda is still to be agreed and implemented, but it is firmly based on the new national grading structure, which took several years to draw up.
The pay commission on local government will no doubt listen to what the Treasury says. There is a single national pay scale that resulted from the 1997 agreement, with the possibility of setting pay flexibility in relation the national structure. Does the Chancellor want to change that arrangement for local government?
Adam Price: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a contradiction in the Government's policy on foundation hospitals? Surely the only purpose of giving foundation hospital trusts autonomy on local pay is to attract key staff from other areas.
Mr. Flight: That is precisely the point. Indeed, the debate that is warming up has strong parallels with the debate on foundation hospitals, in that one is either on one side or the other. We all heard the Chancellor make comments in which he took one side, but then he tried
118WH
to back-pedal. As the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr says, the situation with foundation hospitals illustrates the point.
It goes on, however. Last autumn, the then Secretary of State for Education wrote to the School Teachers Review Body asking it to consider the implications of more pay differentiation by location and subject. What was the reply? What is the Government's intention as regards local pay differentials for teachers? The catastrophe of the grant arrangements certainly made the situation in my constituency worse, and there is a shortage of teachers. Now many redundancies are having to be made because people have got the pay issue wrong.
Against the Government's vague commitment stand the public sector unions. A national pay framework remains their strong policy. They have certainly indicated that, as the Labour party's paymasters, they will fight on the issue. The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education, who formerly had ministerial responsibility for employment relations, is a perennial friend of the unions and was on hand to placate the Government's paymasters. He was quoted as saying:
"I'm pretty sure this won't develop into a regional pay argument, with the government insisting on different pay rates in Yorkshire and Humber to North Lincolnshire, not least because staff will then migrate across the Humber Bridge".
In the post-Budget-debate spinning, the Chancellor appeared to backtrack to reassure the unions that he was not attacking national pay bargaining, which is one of their most potent weapons. Are the Government deceiving the unions or the public about their intentions? Indeed, I repeat: what are their intentions? The debate gives them the opportunity unequivocally to put their plans and proposals on the record.
In his Budget speech and in the euro debates, the Chancellor told us that he wanted to move towards a more flexible form of pay bargaining; but his calls for local and regional pay review bodies were quickly undermined in briefings by junior colleagues after the backlash from the unions. Was the Government's intention on local and regional pay misreported or has there been an enforced backtrack? When will further details of the Government's proposals be made available? How do the Government think that things should work out in practice?
Very speedily, I shall go through some specific points. Can the Government ensure that local pay rates stay local and do not degenerate into rigid regional or, in the case of schools, LEA-determined pay scales? Is the Government's approach local or regional? Have they considered the fact that the spread of more and less affluent areas is often as diverse within regions as it is nationally?
To conclude, local pay bargaining is the norm in the private sector, and there are obvious arguments for having parallel market flexibility. However, there is a great gap between the Chancellor's rhetoric and the reality. The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr might have put his finger on it when he said that the Chancellor's real objective might simply be to restrain the dangerous and accelerating rate of inflation in the public sector, which is up from 1.5 per cent. per annum in 1997 to well over 5 per cent. now. On the other

119WH
hand, was the Chancellor popping in a poison pill as part of the euro debate, as the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) suggested? Please could the Economic Secretary enlighten us as to precisely what the Government's objectives are?
3.19 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): I congratulate the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) on securing the debate, and thank him for giving us the opportunity to discuss what all contributors have agreed is an important matter. I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on approaching a serious subject in a largely—if not entirely—measured way. He said that Government policy was ill conceived, short-sighted and based on false premises. I will demonstrate that the contrary is true.
However, before I do so, I should say that I find it curious—I put it no more strongly—that a Welsh separatist should argue a centralist UK principle. A pro-public sector MP who has called for something distinctive to offer nurses and other professions in the NHS in Wales to tackle recruitment and retention problems is condemning a policy and an approach that will deliver just that. It is also curious that a pro-euro party should oppose the greater market flexibility that is necessary if the UK is to prosper within the European monetary union, as well as being the right thing for Britain, in or out of the euro.
Adam Price: Briefly, I am in favour of any policy that leads to public sector workers in Wales being paid more. I am opposed to any policy that leads to their being paid less.
John Healey: May I say to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field)—[Laughter.] Well, if the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr bears with me, he will see that many of the fears that he has are ill conceived and based on false premises, and will not be fulfilled.
I say to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster that I do not feel beleaguered on all sides in this debate, but if I did, it would not be the first time. I was interested to note that he described himself as a part of an unholy alliance on this issue.
Mr. Field: In the midst of the other comments that were made by the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr in introducing the debate, there was one phrase that the Minister decided to ignore. That was the accusation that Labour's policy was the product of sloppy thinking.
John Healey: I hope that the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr will suspend that judgment for at least another eight minutes so that I have a chance to say some of what I should like to say.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) invited me to flush out the policy. I will try to do just that. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) asked me to do something similar. He asked what the
120WH
Government's agenda was on this matter. I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Yeovil sees the direction of the policy as sensible and that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs sees that it is, at least in principle, entirely correct.
Hon. Members are aware of the context of the Chancellor's announcement that, by next year, almost all pay remits for public sector workers will include a local pay element. As part of the last year's spending review, we undertook and published a cross-cutting review of the public sector labour market. That is hardly, as the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr described it, an oblique reference in the spending review, and it should not have been a hand-grenade surprise to the hon. Member for Yeovil nine months later, in the Chancellor's Budget speech this year.
That review identified the need to increase the flexibility and responsiveness of pay and conditions in the public sector. In particular, the review emphasised that labour market conditions vary significantly within regions, as well as between them. As I said to hon. Members in the House this afternoon, if we are to pursue full employment, stronger growth and improved productivity in every region and nation across the UK, our policies need to take account of those labour market variations at a local level.
The purpose of reform is twofold. First and foremost, it is about improving public services. Last year's spending review set tough targets for public services to ensure that our programme of unprecedented investment is matched by reform and modernisation of working practices, so that we see the benefit of that investment reaching service users—patients, pupils and citizens. No matter what investment and organisational reforms we put into the system, we must be clear in our mind that, in the end, the public sector workers are central to delivering those services, so we need to ensure that we are in a position to recruit, retain and motivate the staff necessary to deliver those services in every area to meet our commitment.
Secondly, a responsive and flexible public sector labour market is necessary for the wider economy. The public sector accounts for around a fifth of the economy, and for the sake of flexibility, we cannot allow it to lag behind the private sector. Barriers that obstruct staff and their skills and prevent them from moving to where they are most needed impose rigidities and adversely affect the economy by restricting the potential for growth and employment.
We must, however, be equally clear about what the policy is not designed to do. It is not about cutting public sector pay, but about ensuring that the public sector has the flexibility to respond to the circumstances in every area in which it operates. The Chancellor has already made it clear, and I reaffirm, that national pay bargaining will continue. We remain firmly committed to a system that is fair. It is also important to be clear that the policy is not only about pay. As the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr rightly said, there are many other significant elements to labour market flexibility.
A recent report by the Audit Commission emphasised the other factors that need to be addressed. Neither is the policy about a principle that is without precedent:

121WH
the approach is already established, negotiated, agreed and operated by trade unions and public sector workers. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) asked me for details of that approach. I ask him to consider the areas in which we are already putting it into practice: the NHS "Agenda for Change"; the local government agreements, including single status; and four pay zones in the Prison Service, which cover the United Kingdom. Those are all tailored to service needs. They all provide for local flexibility within a national framework, and all target recruitment and retention problems, not just pay. They are all negotiated and agreed by public service unions or the existing pay review bodies.
The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs specifically asked about the NHS "Agenda for Change". The agenda covers more than 1 million NHS workers, from non-clinical staff and nurses to other health professionals. All the relevant unions have negotiated and signed up to the agreement in the past three weeks. It is based on a national grading system, with role evaluation and pay protection arrangements for staff whose roles fare less well in job evaluation. Its pay progression is linked to skills and to taking on new roles.
Harmonised high cost supplements will be available in London and, for the first time, staff in the fringe zone of London will be entitled to an extra 5 per cent. supplement. I must tell the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster that the new arrangements are significantly more generous than the old system and will ensure that the NHS can be full staffed in the capital. There will, however, be flexibility to introduce recruitment and retention premiums in the short term and long term for any location or specialism experiencing particular recruitment and retention difficulties anywhere in England or Wales, or in
122WH
Scotland, depending on the Scottish Executive. London is the most obvious and pressing problem. The policy is not confined to London and the south-east: it is not designed to meet the problems only of London and the south-east.
Let me restate the Chancellor's central point. We are determined that fairness will not be undermined in the new system. The national minimum wage and the national tax credit provide a national guarantee. Beyond this framework and in national arrangements, it makes sense to recognise that a more considered approach to local and regional conditions in pay and to other labour market issues offers the best modern route to full employment. Therefore, from this year, the remits for pay review bodies will be amended to ensure that proper consideration is given to regional and local dimensions. For next year, we shall also increase the weight given to the regional and local dimensions in the arrangements for settling civil service pay.
As we take matters forward, we need to think carefully and pragmatically about how the public sector can evolve in a way that best enables us to deliver improved public services and to ensure that the system treats public service employees fairly and gives greater flexibility to the whole economy. I stress that pay is not the only component in tackling the obstacles to recruitment and retention in the public sector, but it is an undeniably important factor. We will continue to work with all stakeholders and that work will not be rushed. We will analyse the current flexibilities in public sector pay and ways of developing them further to meet the needs of the public services, the wider economy and our central objective as a Labour Government of pursuing full employment in every region and every nation of the United Kingdom.

Education Funding (Suffolk)
3.30 pm
Mr. Richard Spring: I thank the Minister for being here to reply to the debate. I begin by paying tribute to the dedication and effectiveness of the director of education at Suffolk county council, Mr David Peachey, who is about to step down from his role and will be greatly missed. It is rare for a local education authority to have such an exemplary relationship with governors, head teachers and other teaching staff. The LEA has tried to minimise the bureaucratic nightmares that affect our schools, and which have such debilitating consequences.
Non-core schools funding is central to schools' budgetary viability, and there is a huge price to pay. On Friday, a head teacher in my constituency received a cheque for e-learning credits. He had no idea when it was going to arrive and how much it would be for; such uncertainty is frequently replicated. He told me that he had had to release his school's special needs co-ordinator to spend two weeks away from the classroom, just to deal with the paperwork for securing funding. Micro-management of schools has reached grotesque proportions.
I also pay tribute to Tom Sherb, who is the area education manager for the western part of Suffolk that covers my constituency; he deserves recognition for his hard work and commitment. This debate will involve no criticism of the LEA's officers—quite the reverse. They have to deal with a schools funding crisis that was described to me by a head teacher of long standing as being of "unique severity" in her teaching career. A schools budget briefing for 2003–04, provided by the LEA, states:
"There has … been a fundamental redistribution of education funding nationally. We have been told that the funding released by the ending of a number of significant specific government grants has been channelled into the general local authority settlement. However, the formula for the Education element of the new Formula Spending Share (FSS) distribution has not favoured Suffolk as we have not regained our share of the grants that have ended. The result is that Suffolk schools' shares of specific grants have reduced in real terms".
The briefing continues:
"Put simply, money through the Suffolk formula has increased broadly in line with cost increases, but other elements of school funding (e.g. Standards Funds grants) have not".
In a letter to Catherine Roberts, of the Department for Education and Skills, Mr Peachey concludes:
"What has caused the problem in Suffolk is the poor share we have received under the new Education Formula Spending which has meant that resources previously targeted via Standards Fund have not been recycled pro rata in our favour. Furthermore, at a 3.2 per cent. overall increase, this falls significantly short of the increase schools needed to stand still to cover pay cost increases and general inflation."
There have been enormous increases in council tax in Suffolk in the past few years. The county hall administration has passed tax rises that are a massive 40 per cent. higher than the national average. In 1997, the council tax bill for an average band D property was about £612. The latest bill is a shocking £1,164, yet there
124WH
has been no remotely proportionate improvement in support services. Suffolk has received a £28.3 million increase in its formula spending share, which has been passed on in full to support spending on pupil-related services. Despite the apparent increase in revenue, parents, governors and teachers have expressed enormous anxiety because of the impact on schools of budgetary crises.
Unusually, Suffolk operates a three-tier system of primary, middle, and upper schools. In the past few weeks I have visited, or been in contact with, primary schools in Stanton, Kedington, Wickhambrook, Exning, and Gazeley; with Scaltback, St. Louis, Ixworth and Riverside middle schools; and with Newmarket upper school. After some frank discussions with head teachers and governors, it became clear that none of them was optimistic about the future; they face acute and challenging budgetary problems. Teachers' and teaching assistants' places are under threat, and several teaching assistants have already had their hours reduced. Many schools are able to continue to employ certain staff only because of reserves that they built up in previous years. Those reserves will certainly not be in place next year. One of the most distinguished middle school head teachers in my constituency informed me that she is retiring early specifically because she cannot face further budgetary crises.
I have nothing but the greatest admiration for head teachers. It is well known that a school's success depends on their ability and judgment, but the strain and anxiety that many of them experience is intolerable; they have to face redundancies, budgetary deficits and larger class sizes. I want to read a passage from a letter to the LEA from Mr. Terry Forrester, chairman of governors at Kedington primary school, in my constituency. By my doing so, I hope that the Minister will realise the seriousness of the situation. Mr. Forrester wrote:
"Our teachers and non teaching staff are constantly working very hard in areas such as drama, local issues, educational visits, music tuition, swimming instruction, and numerous other activities which they do for no other reward than the satisfaction of seeing our children develop as responsible and informed people. Their reward for all that dedication, loyalty and effort? The Governors now have to tell them that because of the budget we will have to reduce their hours and consider redundancies."
Others tell me that they will be reducing the scope of their schools' curricula.
Why has this happened? Put simply, Suffolk has been short-changed—an appallingly familiar theme that is not confined to education. Since 1997, there has been average increase in LEA funding of 47 per cent. throughout England and Wales. Suffolk received a 41 per cent. increase, which was lower than that for the neighbouring counties of Cambridgeshire, Essex and Norfolk. That increase ranked it 136th out of a list of 150. Had Suffolk been funded at the national average level, it would have received an extra £14 million this year and an extra £45 million over six years.
This year, Suffolk has received the equal lowest cash increase per pupil nationally, reaching the national minimum of 3.2 per cent. only after an £108,000 emergency handout from the Government, out of a total of £28 million. That may appear to be a modest real-terms increase, but it is nothing of the kind when seen in

125WH
the context of the various increased costs that schools will have to bear this year. Those additional costs include a 1 per cent. increase in national insurance contributions, a 2.9 per cent. pay award for teachers, and increased expenditure arising from the transfer from the Treasury of responsibility for teachers' employer pensions contributions. Those costs clearly exceed the 3.2 per cent. increase that Suffolk has received.
There has also been a change in the way that funding is organised. Several specialist grants that were given to Suffolk schools have been stopped, and the formula for the education element of the new formula spending share distribution has not favoured Suffolk; it has not regained the money lost through the ending of those grants. My constituents will feel aggrieved when they compare Suffolk's situation with the substantially greater increases in parts of the north of England, with which the Minister will doubtless be familiar. There is a limit to the size of the national cake, but I am asking only for the fair treatment that simply is not happening.
I am sick to death of Suffolk's being short-changed. We have record council tax increases, low levels of NHS investment—Suffolk West primary care trust has the lowest per capita funding in the eastern region—and now a schools crisis. I am left in total exasperation that Suffolk continues to be discriminated against. Complementing the impact of central Government, Suffolk is burdened with a county council that seems incapable of speaking up on the issues that it faces. I am dismayed that county hall continues to let the people of Suffolk down by failing to fight for adequate resources for our county. Such lack of action by Suffolk county council is the reason why I secured today's debate. In early April, I wrote to the leader of the council, councillor Jane Hore—she has just retired—asking her what she had done to argue Suffolk's case directly with the Government. Characteristically, her reply did not answer that question.
The crisis in our schools has been predicted for some time. Sir Jeremy Beecham, chairman of the Local Government Association, wrote to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills as long ago as 9 January, expressing strong concerns about school spending plans that could lead to councils having to make cuts.
I should like to quote from a letter from the head of Ixworth middle school which sets out the situation in her school, and is entirely symptomatic of the situation. She states:
"I am writing to you with my concerns about this year's school budget and its potential impact on standards here at Ixworth Middle School.
Our delegated budget for 2002–03 was just over £1,078,000. This was based on pupil numbers of 470. This year we have just under £1,091,000, an increase of only 1.7 per cent., based on 473 pupils. With a reduction in standards funding from the LEA, the increase in the standards grant has effectively disappeared completely.
We have not been able to finally set this year's budget, although I am now in discussion with the LEA about a licensed deficit. We have had to announce redundancies and have discussed this with the personnel department and the unions.
Following this discussion, we will be having one voluntary redundancy, and are not replacing another teacher who is leaving … In order to reduce the need for staff cuts, we have
126WH
reduced planned spending on repairs, educational supplies and services and extra hours for support staff. We have reduced staff training and the allocation of funding for supply. One key member of staff is to lose a temporary management allowance which has been given in recognition of the valuable work he has done on ICT and in particular training staff.
All these cuts have direct implications on our ability to uphold the agreement on teacher workload, which I support. It also makes it very difficult to provide training for staff in the new KS3 strategy, and means that our plans to improve ICT facilities in school will be severely curtailed. The school building is old and expensive to heat and to maintain, and I am not sure that our planned expenditure on repairs is sustainable.
The uncertainty about redundancies and cuts in support staff hours has led to anxiety amongst the staff, and I now have one full-time teacher off ill with stress as a direct result of the discussions about redundancy. It also means that our school development plan, which aims to raise standards in all aspects of school life including curriculum, is not funded. Much of it will rely on the goodwill of staff."
And she concludes:
"We are currently working on our plan for recovery from this position. For the next two years our pupil numbers are predicted to rise, and cutting staff now is likely to create problems in the future. With so much unknown about funding for schools in the future, including the funding of teacher pay above the threshold, I cannot see how we can plan effectively.
I would like to think we can maintain academic standards despite these problems, but with the added workload for teachers and larger class sizes, it will be difficult. I know that my teachers work hard already. I am concerned about next year and the pressures that are likely to be put on the staff."
That situation is typical. The National Union of Teachers made a comprehensive analysis of section 188 proposals at the school. It concluded that
"a comparison … shows that the disappearance of the Schools Standards Grant heading … has not been replaced by alternative forms of funding. As a result, the overall delegated budget total this year is only 1.2 per cent. higher than last. This is clearly totally inadequate, in view of the county's admission that an increase of 6.9 per cent. is required for a standstill budget."
In reality, the problem is caused by the 3.2 per cent. increase, which falls significantly short of what schools need to stand still, if they are to cover pay increases and general inflation. We have heard a lot about commitments to education. To repeat in Suffolk any slogan involving the word "education" would now be a cruel joke to many parents, teachers and governors, who are terribly disappointed about this year's arrangement. They face extremely hard and unpalatable choices, and unless the arrangements are quickly changed for next year, the consequences will be truly catastrophic. I hope that the Minister will be honest enough to admit that the shortfall in schools funding is due to the Government's miscalculating the real costs faced by schools this year, and not to local authorities' squandering the extra investment.
I reserve my most specific criticism for the county council, which, for reasons that escape me, will not stand up for the people of Suffolk. It repeatedly spurns or ignores the attempts of my colleagues and I to get it to speak out and work assertively with us to get fairness for our constituents. There has been a shameful silence in the county over council tax and the bed-blocking crisis, and now there is a shameful silence over education. There has been meek acquiescence in wholly

127WH
unfair central Government settlements. The county council—not I—should be hammering on the Government's door to defend and promote the interests of the people of Suffolk in any area for which it has statutory responsibility. It is beyond my understanding—and that of the many head teachers, governors and parents who have spoken to me—that the county council does not do so. It is through it and the Government that this wholly unacceptable situation has come about.
I hope that the Minister can offer some comfort to my constituents and to the people of Suffolk as a whole, and that he will confirm that this is a temporary situation that he will seek to address in the next two years.
3.46 pm
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): I hope that I can start my response to the hon. Member for West Sussex on a consensual—
Mr. Spring: West Suffolk, actually.
Mr. Miliband: I hope that I can start my response to the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) on a note of consensus. First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the debate. Secondly, I am happy to second his strong words of support for Mr. Peachey, the departing chief executive of the council.
The hon. Gentleman did not find time in his remarks to highlight the improved achievement of school pupils in Suffolk. There has been a steady rise in the number of children achieving good A to C grades at GCSE, and a strong improvement in primary school performance in the area. I am sure that, at a time when many people are too ready to disparage the teaching profession, he would happily join me in paying tribute to the excellent work that teachers have done and to the hard work of pupils.
I fear that our mutual agreement may begin to erode there. Part of the hon. Gentleman's speech sounded as if he wanted to have someone else answering the debate: local politicians who could speak up for the county. I will give him a national perspective.
Mr. Chris Mole: Does the Minister agree that a good example of what has been achieved by the county council in Suffolk is last December's acknowledgement by the Ofsted report that the Suffolk local education authority is one of the top six in the country?
Mr. Miliband: I am sure that it was my hon. Friend's modesty that prevented him from referring to his record as a leader of the council for nine or 10 years. Ofsted gave a very positive report on the work of the LEA, and I am happy to pay tribute to that.
Let me address funding, as well as cost pressures and the distribution of resources to schools—issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. He will know that the Department shares joint responsibility with local authorities for the distribution of money to schools. We distribute money to local authorities—the hon. Gentleman raised a number of questions about how that
128WH
is done—and it is for local authorities to distribute money to schools according to their own formulae. He also raised issues about that.
I will not rehearse for the hon. Gentleman the overall rises in education spending this year but, when he talks about the despair that he feels at the funding position in Suffolk, he does not do justice to the significant improvement in the funding position of Suffolk schools over the past six years. My statistics suggest that there has been a £74 million increase in funding in Suffolk. That is significant, but does not include the money paid as school standards grant direct to schools. A 250-pupil primary school might receive £10,000 more this year than last year, a rise from £40,000 to £50,000. A typical secondary school of 1,000 pupils might receive an extra £50,000.
The hon. Gentleman touched briefly on capital spending and I am honour bound to point out that, in 1998–99, capital funding in Suffolk was £8.7 million and is now £35 million, so there has been significant investment. I am interested to hear that he believes that there is a long way to go, but I am happy to confirm that the Government's plans include rising funding for capital expenditure throughout the country.
The hon. Gentleman raised his concern about the way in which the funding system distributes money to different parts of the country and I want to address that point directly. This has been a unique year of change in the Government funding system. Partly in response to demands from local education authorities and schools, we have introduced a number of changes to the system. He will know that the old system was based on the 1991 census and was out of date, unfair and did not deliver a good deal for significant parts of the country.
The principles of the new system should commend themselves to the hon. Gentleman. They are based on three simple indices. First, an amount is paid per pupil: £2,000 per pupil in primary education and £2,500 per pupil in secondary education. That is clearly established. In making our decision about that, we listened to many responses, including those from the education funding strategy group on which LEAs were represented. However, there were other factors and he would agree that they are important.
Secondly, there should be recognition of the different costs in different parts of the country. Thirdly, there should be recognition of additional education needs. The changes to the area cost adjustment mean that 99 authorities rather than 50 benefit from that adjustment. The fact that Suffolk does not is a matter of regret to the hon. Gentleman, but I assure him that the area cost adjustment is calculated on an independent and scientific basis. It reflects local labour market costs, which are lower in Suffolk than in other parts of the country.
I want to address additional education needs. The new system, which contributes significantly to the amount of money that Suffolk receives, places particular emphasis on two items: The first is the number of children from families on income support. The figure in Suffolk is around 11 per cent. compared with a national average of 17 per cent. That is a significant contributor to Suffolk's funding position. The second change is also significant. For the first time, the system recognises the number of pupils who come from families with low-paid

129WH
work and the number of families in which parents receive the working families tax credit. That benefits Suffolk.
Mr. Mole: I was pleased that the county council lobbied me on the distribution of local government finance last year and I was able to meet the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire, my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford). I was also pleased that that point was acknowledged by the Government and taken on board. That allowed an increase of those elements in which there is a multiplier. However, it was disappointing that the changes to the resource equalisation factor led to a significant reduction in overall finance.
Mr. Miliband: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.
The hon. Member for West Suffolk did not mention the sparsity element that now exists in the formula. That reflects the cost of home-to-school transport in rural areas such as Suffolk and is specifically designed to recognise some of the special needs that exist there. I know that a number of sparse authorities, one of them is Suffolk, wanted us to introduce a sparsity factor for secondary schools. We examined the issue in detail but found no evidence of a connection between secondary school size and sparsity.
I want to speak about this year in particular because, as well as raising questions about the general distribution of funding around the country, the hon. Gentleman referred specifically to the difficulties that some schools are facing this year. I cannot respond on a school-by-school basis but, if he would like to write to me with details of any school in his constituency, I shall endeavour to address the points that he raises.
This has been a unique year for the school funding system, not just because of changes in the local government finance system, but because of at least two other significant changes. First, the hon. Gentleman knows that for a long time there has been pressure from local government and schools to reduce the amount of money that is spent centrally by the Department to reduce the amount of ring-fencing in the system. Reductions in the proportion of funding for LEAs and schools provided through specific grant funding have occurred in the spending review, which has resulted in a significant change in the distribution of the standards fund and a reduction in the amount of Government money that is spent centrally.
The second change that the hon. Gentleman referred to, which is important, is that additional costs will arise this year not just from the national insurance change, but more significantly from the additional costs arising from the changes to teachers' pensions. I am sure that he would agree that it is important that, when the Government Actuary makes recommendations in relation to the teachers' pensions scheme, the Government respond in a responsible way. I am pleased that we have been able to put extra money into the system to recognise the extra costs that have arisen as a result. That has been of equal benefit to schools in Suffolk and those elsewhere.
130WH
The hon. Gentleman, in his description of the situation facing schools, mentioned the role of the county council. It is obviously a matter of pleasure for me that the county council passported in full the money that was allocated to it by central Government. There are issues for all local councils about the money that is passported to education and that is then devolved down to school level.
The hon. Gentleman will know that we have been in discussions with local authorities all over the country about the amount of money spent centrally on matters such as special needs and the provision of pupil referral units, and about the money that has been shifted from revenue accounts in some parts of the country—not in Suffolk—into capital. That discussion is ongoing with all councils and LEAs across the country.
In Suffolk, there are particular pressures on the special needs budget. There are also some significant contingencies for which Suffolk local education authority needs to plan. The hon. Gentleman will know that the impact of movement by armed forces personnel is a significant issue in the county. Therefore, it is prudent for the LEA to budget for those changes, and to be ready to represent them. My statistics show that forces children can represent up to 50 per cent. of the roll of a local school. I do not know if that tallies with his local view. That has a significant impact on schools when families move on.
I want to put a final issue on record. Around the country, local education authorities, and a significant number of schools, are struggling with the effects of declining numbers of primary school pupils. For the first time since the introduction of local management of schools in 1990, we are seeing significant reductions in the primary school population. There are 50,000 fewer primary school pupils this year than last year. Next year, there will be another 50,000 fewer, and an additional 50,000 fewer the year after. That means a fall in the primary school population of 150,000. That has significant effects around the country, and I would be interested to see whether some of the schools that the hon. Gentleman cited are suffering from the difficulties that are raised by declining primary school numbers. It is a significant issue.
I conclude by explaining how we want to move forward. The hon. Gentleman will know that, at the time of the Government's submission to the School Teachers Review Body last year, we were keen to ensure a three-year settlement for teachers' pay, which would give predictability and stability to schools in planning their budgets for future years. The STRB did not grant us that recommendation, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we seek the stability and predictability for which he was asking. A two-year budget would be extremely desirable for all schools.
I know that schools in Suffolk and elsewhere in the country are looking for reassurance for the next two years. I would like to highlight how we are approaching the problem. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he would like a reasonable per-pupil increase for every school in the country, which requires our Department to consider carefully some significant issues. For example, we need to examine not just the allocation of funding to LEAs, but the right balance

131WH
between support from general grant and specific ring-fenced grants from the centre. We must strike the right balance between in-school provision and out-of-school provision. There must be fair and appropriate variations in the budget increases received by different schools within an LEA, which are dependent on the formula used, specifically the amount of damping that exists in a local formula to protect schools. Finally, we must ensure that the agenda for the devolution of responsibility to head teachers continues. From our point of view, a two-year settlement on pay and other issues would help that.
I hope that I have answered the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. I look forward to continuing the debate with him.

Mr. Sandy Mitchell
4 pm
Mr. John Lyons: I welcome the opportunity to have this Adjournment debate and to discuss more fully the case of Mr. Sandy Mitchell from Kirkintilloch, one of my constituents.
I make it clear from the outset that this is not an anti-Saudi Arabia debate. If it is anything at all, it is a debate that is pro-Sandy Mitchell and the other prisoners. It is about Sandy Mitchell, James Cottle, Peter Brandon, Les Walker, James Patrick Lee and Bill Sampson. The others are all prisoners with Sandy Mitchell in Saudi Arabia at the present time.
It may be helpful if I sketch briefly some of the background to the case. Sandy Mitchell has been in prison since December 2000, when he was arrested and charged with being part of a bombing campaign in Saudi Arabia. The bombing had killed a British citizen, Christopher Rodway, in November 2000, so the arrests were made quite quickly after the bombing. The men have continually pleaded their innocence. Since the time of his imprisonment, Sandy Mitchell has spent about 18 months in solitary confinement. He has spent that 18 months and his time with joint cell facilities in an underground cell. Last week's temperatures in Saudi Arabia ranged from 53° F to 56° F, so one can imagine how intolerable that situation must be, just in terms of the heat alone.
Sandy Mitchell is held in a cell for 23 hours every day. He is allowed to leave his cell for one hour. That is withdrawn at weekends: on Saturday and Sunday he spends 24 hours in the underground cell. The cell being underground, it has no natural light at all. He receives one phone call every month, which is his main contact, although of course he has consular contact at the same time.
During his time in prison, Sandy Mitchell's health has deteriorated quite significantly. That is confirmed by his sister, Margaret Dunn. In a recent letter to me, she said:
"I last saw Sandy in January of this year. I was in Saudi Arabia for 1 week. While I was there the Saudis afforded me the opportunity to see my brother, for which I am eternally grateful. They were hospitable and courteous which I appreciated.
I am told my brother is coping. I was told before Christmas my brother was coping. I don't believe that Sandy or any of the men being detained are coping—I saw that for myself in January."
Mr. Andrew Miller: As my hon. Friend knows, Les Walker's sister is one of my constituents. She passed very similar comments to me. Les had a heart condition before he was imprisoned, and the family are very frightened for his well-being because of the heat and the circumstances in which he is held. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should ask our colleagues in the Foreign Office on humanitarian grounds, if for no other reason, to plead with the Saudi authorities to consider the health of these men and to release them?
Mr. Lyons: I am grateful for that intervention. I think that everyone will agree that vast humanitarian arguments are now developing about the situation that the men are in. A consistent story is being repeated

133WH
about how they are held and the conditions in which they are held. Margaret Dunn feels that the
"situation needs to be brought to an end. Sandy is now well into his 3rd year and he is ill. The situation has taken a toll on ALL the family."
She goes on to make a number of points about his son, who was a newborn baby when his father was imprisoned in Saudi, and is now four years old. There is consistency not only in Margaret Dunn's story, but in Les Walker's family story.
The sister of Sandy Mitchell said that quite naturally he is depressed. He is appealing against a decision to behead him publicly in Saudi, which is what his appeal for clemency is trying to stop. I do not suppose any of us could ever really understand the pressure and anxiety of trying to appeal for clemency against a background of such a decision. Even if we could imagine it, it is horrific to have to he fighting against such a sentence. He is suffering from high and erratic blood pressure, and Margaret Dunn makes the point that both her parents died from heart conditions, so she is particularly concerned for her brother who has, in fact, been taken to hospital during the time that he has been imprisoned because of his heart condition.
Sandy and the other people whom I have mentioned were accused of a bombing in Saudi. The Saudis accused all of them of fighting a turf war on the issue of illegal alcohol and its sale and use in Saudi Arabia. At the outset, a number of important organisations suggested that the bombing had been carried out by a domestic terror organisation, but since that day that has continually been denied by the Saudi Arabian authorities. The central point is that, during the period that the men have been in jail, bombings in Saudi have not only continued but intensified. More recently, there have been massive suicide attacks on western housing compounds in Riyadh. If evidence were needed, that conclusively proves the case that there was and has been a domestic terror element in Saudi. It might be difficult for the Saudis to admit that, but the facts speak for themselves.
Sandy Mitchell originally appeared on Saudi television to confess his part in the bombing. Anyone who has seen a recording of that on the news or elsewhere will have seen a person who was frightened, who had a stilted delivery and who was obviously reading from a statement that had been produced for the television cameras. I think that we can discount any confession that people make on Saudi television in this case—whether it is Sandy Mitchell or anyone else.
Jim Sheridan: One can only imagine the state of mind of not only Sandy Mitchell and the others, but the family. Given the confession by Sandy Mitchell on public television, is my hon. Friend aware of any professional assessment made of his mental health?
Mr. Lyons: I welcome my hon. Friend's question. I do not know whether there has been a professional assessment, but anyone with an O-level or A-level in psychology would be able to determine that the confession on television was far from natural. Other evidence also points to torture and forced confessions from these people.
134WH
I said that these men confessed on television. Later, those confessions were withdrawn by all the people involved. Clearly, physical and psychological torture has taken place. It is not a one-off case, as ample evidence exists of other cases in which people have been physically and psychologically tortured in Saudi Arabia. The case of Ron Jones is a prime example. He went to the UK courts recently to prove that he was abused in Saudi. There is plenty more evidence. David Morin, a friend of Sandy Mitchell, who worked in Saudi at the same time as he did, claimed that he had been tortured in Saudi.
In February, the UN representative and special rapporteur, Param Cumaraswamy, visited the men in prison. He concluded that there had been "substantial procedural irregularities" in their case. He went on to describe the men's claims that they had been tortured into confessing as certainly consistent. As my hon. Friend said, an independent voice from the UN is substantiating the men's claims about their torture and forced confession.
The case has changed quite dramatically in the past few months. An appeal for clemency towards the men—including Sandy Mitchell, of course—has been presented by their lawyers and is now before King Fahd. The Foreign Office needs to lift its game and intensify the campaign on behalf of Sandy Mitchell and the others. We cannot allow the clemency appeal to be considered in isolation: there must be political pressure to accompany it. The Saudis need to know how the British Government feel about the case.
Dr. John Pugh: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I triggered a debate on the topic some two or three weeks ago. Since then, I have received a letter from the Saudi ambassador in England, and I think that there might be mileage in asking the Foreign Office to facilitate sending a deputation of MPs to see the Saudi ambassador in private. Does the hon. Gentleman think that there is merit in that?
Mr. Lyons: I do. That is a good suggestion, because it would give all of us representing a constituent's interests the chance to make representations collectively. If the hon. Gentleman's suggestion would help, I would be happy to do it. I am happy to exert as much pressure as I can, because it would be pointless for me to insist that the Foreign Office exerts pressure if I were unprepared to do so myself.
By the end of the debate, if we achieve nothing else, we need to make sure that the Minister will tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs that those of us involved in the debate, and in representing our constituents' interests, want him to put as much pressure as possible on the Saudis. He must tell them that the British Government fully support the appeal for clemency. As I have said, it is time to intensify the campaign. There must be personal intervention, if that is what is needed. It is certainly what the families demand. They want more activity; they want it 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It is all very well for people to criticise them and say that they are putting too much pressure on the Government, but any family would naturally want to do that if a relative were involved.
Anne Picking: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. On the issue of the

135WH
families, I am a mother, a sister and a daughter, and I cannot imagine how horrific the situation must be for the family members of Mr. Mitchell and the other men. I wonder how desperate they are. I know that they will have made many representations to the Minister. What about their health and sleepless nights, and the hell that they are going through?
Mr. Lyons: I welcome my hon. Friend's eloquent comments. She has properly put the matter into perspective. We have been talking throughout about the health cost to those who have been in prison. There is a cost—and I do not think that it can be measured—to the friends and relatives who are trying to do something about the situation, but who almost feel that it is a waste of time, and that they are not making any progress at all. I am conscious of that.
There is another issue that I must raise, because I have been asked to do so by Sandy Mitchell's sister. She has been told by the Foreign Office that even if Sandy Mitchell is successful in his clemency appeal, the Foreign Office will not pay the air fare to bring him and the other men back to the UK. I put on record that I am horrified that the Foreign Office should take that stand. It is crass and insensitive; it displays the sensitivity of a torturer. I cannot believe that it has made that decision. That should not be a consideration at this stage. The priorities should be the clemency appeal, the freedom of the men and getting them back to the UK. After that the question of the fares can be dealt with.
In my opinion, Sandy Mitchell and the others are innocent. They must have the full support of the Foreign Office in every possible way. The well-being of the prisoners and of their relatives and family is central—my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking) made that point.
At the beginning of the debate, I said that I did not want this to be an anti-Saudi discussion. I am quite prepared to accuse the Saudi Arabian authorities of physical and psychological torture, because I believe the men, and they say that that is what they faced. I also believe Ron Jones, who is another valid witness to all this. The legal process in Saudi Arabia that was used to sentence the men raises serious and fundamental judicial procedure questions. The plight of the men must become a priority, because the clemency appeal needs to be decided as quickly as possible, and I think that our pressure can achieve that.
I finish with a simple point. I have a photograph of Sandy Mitchell with a newborn baby. That baby is now four years old. He has never seen his father. I hope that the Minister and the Foreign Secretary can swiftly change that.
4.16 pm
Mrs. Ann Cryer: I rise to mention a couple of facts. The Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding sponsored a trip by five parliamentarians between 17 and 19 May. I almost pulled out of it because, a few days before we left, the suicide bomb exploded in the foreigners' compound in Riyadh. The Foreign Office was opposed to our visit: it said that it was too dangerous. My family was opposed
136WH
to me going, too. I only decided to go because my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) said that I could be useful in making representations on behalf of Sandy Mitchell. I felt that it was a risk worth taking.
I am pleased that I went. The five parliamentarians met 12 different groups and individuals, such as Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi Foreign Minister, and a large group of members of the Shura council. We made a plea of clemency for Sandy Mitchell and the other prisoners in Riyadh at every one of those meetings. I am not sure that we made any impact, but if effort is what counts we should have had some success because we tried very hard. We explained that we were not criticising Saudi criminal law: we were simply asking for clemency for these prisoners, and particularly for Sandy Mitchell.
4.18 pm
The Minister for Trade and Investment (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) on securing this debate. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), set out our anxieties about the men detained in Saudi Arabia in a debate on 3 June, and I welcome the opportunity further to emphasise our deep concern about this case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden asked specifically about the case of Sandy Mitchell. We are concerned about all the men who are detained. Mr. Mitchell is one of the detained persons who are accused of involvement in a series of bombings. We have serious concerns about the case and have been working on behalf of the detained men. This is a very difficult time for Sandy Mitchell and his family, and for the families of all the men involved. We are trying to resolve the case on behalf of each of them, and I would not wish to say anything today that will make that more difficult.
Let me deal specifically with some aspects of Sandy Mitchell's case. We share the deep concern that is felt about it. We have raised Mr. Mitchell's case at the highest level with the Saudi authorities and will continue to do so until it is successfully resolved. I give a clear undertaking that that is the position of the Foreign Office.
My hon. Friend raised several issues, and I shall deal with some of them. He referred to the payment for airline tickets back to the United Kingdom when the men are released. In such cases, the Foreign Office can, if required, make funds available to British nationals and their families. We shall consider their ability to pay. The loan is usually made available, so that British nationals do not have to worry about funding tickets immediately and can return to the United Kingdom as quickly as possible. However, I take my hon. Friend's point and we may have the opportunity to talk about the matter later.
Mr. Miller: I want to put on the record my thanks to colleagues in the Home Office for the sympathetic way in which they have dealt with Mrs. Walker, who is a

137WH
Filipino citizen. Their actions have shown that the Government take a common-sense approach, for which I am particularly grateful.
Mr. O'Brien: I take note of my hon. Friend's thanks. The Home Office, like the Foreign Office, takes a sensible approach.
There has been a request that a group of Members of Parliament meet the Saudi ambassador. It may be helpful to reinforce the public concern that is felt in this country about the case.
Dr. Pugh: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. O'Brien: I want to make some progress, but I shall give way briefly.
Dr. Pugh: Will the Minister confirm that the Foreign Office will do something to help a private deputation take place?
Mr. O'Brien: The Saudi ambassador will obviously have to consider whether he wishes to see a deputation. If my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden wishes to lead such a delegation, as he introduced the debate, I will discuss with him whether we might satisfactorily approach the Saudi ambassador.
I am pleased that the Saudi authorities allowed Margaret Dunn to see her brother. It enabled her at least to see for herself how he was. Her concern about his health is a matter that the Foreign Office takes seriously and we have raised such matters with the Saudi authorities. Although the British Government are working tirelessly on behalf of Sandy Mitchell, we have taken the view that that is most effectively done by engaging with the Saudi authorities in private.
We have not sought publicity because we have made the judgment that until now that would be detrimental to Sandy Mitchell's interests. As he has made clear, at least to Foreign Office officials during visits, he does not wish the Foreign Office to discuss the detail of his case in public. He has legal representation and is in close contact with his lawyers. I understand that he can have private meetings with them. The lawyers talk to the Saudi authorities about the progress of the case. We have regular contact with Sandy Mitchell's family and keep them informed, in so far as we are able, about developments. It has been a long and difficult process for the family. We do not underestimate how upsetting it must be for them. We certainly extend our sympathy to them for the upset that they have experienced.
The background to the case is known. A series of small bomb explosions in Riyadh and Al Kobar between November 2000 and September 2002 resulted in the death and injury of British nationals and other westerners. When considering the case of the detained men, we must also remember that in Britain the families of those who were killed and injured want justice to be done. We will not forget the bombings, which caused a huge amount of pain, hardship and distress to the victims and their families.
Some people accuse the Foreign Office of putting our trading and defence relationships with Saudi Arabia before the welfare of the men detained. My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden did not
138WH
suggest that, and it is certainly not the case. However, it is worth putting it on the record that our trading relationship will not prevent us from actively taking up the case of those men with the Saudi Government. We can pursue the case because we have a relationship about a range of issues with Saudi Arabia. When it is merited, we are prepared to criticise that country. We cover a wide range of matters with the Saudi authorities, and we raise human rights issues, both generally and in the context of Sandy Mitchell's case.
In the Adjournment debate on 3 June, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary described how we raised a wide range of human rights issues with the Saudi authorities, so I do not need to rehearse that fact. The UN special rapporteur for the independence of judges and lawyers visited Saudi Arabia last October. He examined the case of the British men detained and voiced his concerns about it.
More recently, Saudi Arabia has shown a greater willingness to engage with the international community on human rights issues. It has produced reports for unanswered questions from the UN treaty monitoring bodies. Saudi Arabia has submitted its first report to the UN Committee against Torture since it ratified the convention in 1997. In May 2002, the committee asked Saudi Arabia about its use of flogging and amputation by judicial and administrative authorities, the powers of the religious police and prolonged pre-trial incommunicado detention.
The fact that Saudi Arabian authorities also answered questions from the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in March 2003 is another indication of Saudi Arabia's greater willingness to engage on human rights issues.In the report, the UN committee raised worries about the rights of foreign workers, among other issues.
The ratification of the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women is also a welcome sign. However, we are concerned about the wide-ranging reservations placed on that by Saudi Arabia. There is universal compulsory female education; women have had access to university education since 1962 and attendance is increasing; opportunities for women in commerce are improving; and many businesses are owned and run by women. However, their situation in Saudi Arabia still gives cause for public concern.
In May 2002, Saudi Arabia adopted new criminal justice procedures, which were aimed at modernising the criminal justice system. Among other things, those procedures provide for lawyers to represent defendants and for greater transparency in court proceedings. Saudi Arabia has announced its intention to establish two human rights bodies. We respect the Saudi wish for a legal system based on Sharia law, but we are worried about the system's willingness to comply with all international standards. We remain committed to encouraging the Saudi authorities to improve their human rights record. We are encouraged by the Saudi Government's ratification of some of the UN human rights treaties. We wish to see the Saudi Government more deeply reflected when dealing with some of those concerns.
Jim Sheridan: Given that the appeal for clemency can take place at any time, can the Minister give us any

139WH
assurance that the appeal and the decision will not be made until every representation by every interested party has been made?
Mr. O'Brien: I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend that we will continue to press at the highest level for an early resolution of the case. I cannot go further than that, but I can reassure him that we are serious about resolving the matter. The Saudi Arabian authorities know how deeply worried we are about it and it is being dealt with at the highest level. Our work on behalf of
140WH
Sandy Mitchell has been consistent with our wider consular effort, helping British nationals in distress overseas. It is one of the most important elements of the Government's foreign policy.
On that basis, we can provide a level of reassurance to the families that those who are detained are not forgotten and that we will continue to do all that we reasonably can—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Edward O'Hara): Order.
It being half past Four o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Regeneration (North-West)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on regeneration in the North West. [119758]

  Yvette Cooper
  "Sustainable communities in the North West—Building for the future" accompanied the publication of the national action plan launched in February. This sets out proposals in the North West, complementing the work of the Local Strategic Partnerships and investment of the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund.

  Regional Government
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his referendum proposals for regional government in the North West. [119759]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on Monday 16 June that the level of interest in the North West region is sufficient to warrant a referendum about whether to establish an elected regional assembly. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister directed the Boundary Committee for England to undertake a local government review in the region as a precursor to a referendum.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, if he will make a statement on trends in the numbers of homeless households in priority need since May 1997. [119760]

  Keith Hill
  The latest Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Statistical Release on statutory homelessness, covering figures for England in the first quarter of 2003, was published on 17 June. Table 1 of the statistical release shows the number of households accepted by local housing authorities in England as homeless and in priority need under the homelessness legislation for each year from 1997–98 to 2002–03, with a quarterly breakdown of figures for each quarter since 1 January 2000. Copies of the statistical release are available in the Library of the House.

  Affordable Housing
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to require property developers to provide more affordable homes in private housing schemes. [119755]

  Keith Hill
  The recently published Sustainable Communities Plan sets out our intentions with regard to increasing the number of affordable homes. The Office 214W
  of the Deputy Prime Minister is updating existing planning guidance and will support this with practical advice about what works well and where. The latest statistics shows a steep rise in permissions for affordable homes to around 18,500. Through the update we want to see this improved yet further.

  Arson
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of fires(a) on farms and (b) in retail premises were caused by arson in each year from 1997 to 2001; and what the estimated cost to the fire service was in each year. [120031]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is in the following tables. Malicious fires are those where malicious or deliberate ignition was proved or suspected.

  Information on the cost to the fire service is not available before 1999. The estimates in the table are derived from applying an average fire service response cost for commercial fires of £12,950 to each farm and retail fire attended.

  Fires in agricultural premises, UK, 1997–2001

  Total

  Malicious

  Percentage malicious

  Estimated costs (£000)

  1997

  1,663

  747

  45

  —

  1998

  1,315

  659

  50

  —

  1999

  1,435

  650

  45

  8,418

  2000

  1,380

  651

  47

  8,430

  2001

  1,267

  486

  38

  6,294

  Fires in retail premises, UK, 1997–2001

  Total

  Malicious

  Percentage malicious

  Estimated costs (£000)

  1997

  5,787

  2,321

  40

  —

  1998

  5,699

  2,229

  39

  —

  1999

  5,699

  2,236

  39

  28,956

  2000

  5,358

  2,200

  41

  28,490

  2001

  5,687

  2,474

  44

  32,038

  Notes:

  Data for 2001 are provisional.

  The definition of retail premises includes vehicle trade premises

  Council Tax
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the expenditure was by local authorities on council tax benefit administration for the financial years 1999–2000 to 2002–03. [119995]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Council tax benefit administration costs as reported by local authorities are as tabled:

  £ million

  1999–2000

  178.8

  2000–01

  194.8

  2001–02

  218.7

  2002–031

  208.3

  1 Budgeted figures

  Source:

  RO4 forms 1999–00 to 2001–02 and RA form 2002–03

  Equality
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans his Department has to establish a single equality body to deal with all equality issues. [114613]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  I announced a consultation on the future of Great Britain's equality institutions on 22 October 2002, Official Report, column 246W, looking at the possibility of creating a single equality body among other options. We received nearly 300 written responses to this consultation which closed in February and are currently considering in detail the views expressed. We will make an announcement on the broad shape of future arrangements for equality institutions in due course.

  Estate Agents Act
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to amend the Estate Agents Act 1979. [118133]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Office of Fair Trading is currently investigating the market for estate agents in England and Wales, including the effectiveness of the Estate Agents Act 1979.

  I will consider carefully any recommendations the Director General of Fair Trading makes about future regulation of this market.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the number of firefighters who will be made redundant in each fire authority in England under the new arrangements; and if he will make a statement. [119677]

  Mr. Raynsford
  No such estimate has been made as part of the process of introducing integrated risk management. The Deputy Prime Minster has repeatedly made it clear that the modernisation of the fire service can be achieved without the need for compulsory redundancies.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effect on fire service 999 emergency response times in Harrogate and Knaresborough of the new risk management plans. [119678]

  Mr. Raynsford
  No assessment has been made of the effect on fire service 999 emergency response times in Harrogate and Knaresborough. Under integrated risk management, it will be for fire authorities to set local standards for responding to fires and other emergencies in the light of a full assessment of the risks faced by their communities.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place in the Library(a) the Burchill proposed costing for each fire authority in England and (b) the fire authority costing for the proposals put forward by the fire authorities. [119680]
  216W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The proposals put forward by Professor Frank Burchill for the resolution of the pay dispute between the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) and their local authority employers contained no detailed costings. The proposals put forward by the employers, accepted by the FBU on 12 June 2003, do not include costings, but the employers have assured me that the deal is deliverable within current budgets, supported by £30 million of transitional funding from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, repayable over the Spending Review 2002 period.

  Home Starter Initiative
  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many key sector workers were housed and what amount was spent on affordable housing in rural areas under the Home Starter Initiative since September 2001. [117988]

  Keith Hill
  As at 31 May 2003, £5.253 million has been spent under the Starter Home Initiative to assist 287 key workers in local authorities with rural districts.

  Official Spelling
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make it his policy that all official(a) correspondence, (b) reports and (c) documentation from his office uses the English spelling of words where this differs from the American version. [118748]

  Yvette Cooper
  In line with the guidance issued by the Cabinet Office to departments on the Handling of Ministerial and Order correspondence it is the policy of the Office of the Prime Minister to use the English spelling of English words. Where we employ specialist proof readers, and typesetters we direct them to use the Oxford English Dictionary as their reference and to use the guidance issued on Plain Written English. Within the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister the spell check facility on our IT systems is set to the UK English dictionary.

  Regional Assemblies
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent representations he has received on holding a referendum for elections to a regional assembly in Yorkshire and the Humber. [118361]

  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 each English region (outside London) 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.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many houses were sold under(a) the Right to Buy and (b) the right to acquire in each of the last five years; what his estimate is of those totals over the next three years; what plans he has to revise the guidance to tenants

  217W
  in respect of these schemes; and what plans he has further to amend the (a) discount and (b) clawback period in respect of these schemes. [119603]

  Keith Hill
  The information is as follows:

  Right to Buy

  1. Sales

  The following are the most recently available figures for sales under the Right to Buy scheme in England:

  Number

  1997–98

  41,329

  1998–99

  40,272

  1999–2000

  54,251

  2000–01

  52,380

  2001–02

  51,968

  No estimates have been made of sales over the next three years.

  Guidance to tenants

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister booklet for tenants "Your right to buy your home" was reissued in August 2002, along with a separate booklet on the 'Rent to Mortgage' scheme. When the booklet is next reprinted, during the next few months, it will be amended to reflect the announcement in March 2003 that the maximum discount available to tenants under the Right to Buy scheme has been reduced in 41 areas under the greatest housing pressure. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister wrote on 6 March 2003 to local authorities in London and the South-East, Eastern and South-Western regions, confirming these reductions; with this letter was enclosed an extra page explaining the changes, for inclusion in copies of "Your right to buy your home" given to tenants.

  Discounts

  The Government will keep the position on maximum discounts under review.

  Repayment of discount (clawback)

  At present, if an individual resells the property which he has purchased under the Right to Buy scheme within three years from the date of purchase, he must repay discount. During the first year, all the discount must be repaid; thereafter, the amount to be repaid reduces by one-third for each complete year that elapses.

  The Government's draft Housing Bill, published on 31 March 2003, proposes to extend the repayment period to five years. During the first year, all the discount will have to be repaid; thereafter, the amount to be repaid will reduce by one-fifth for each complete year that elapses.

  Right to Acquire

  Sales

  The following are the most recently available figures for sales under the Right to Acquire scheme in England:

  Number

  1998–99

  0

  1999–2000

  5

  2000–01

  18

  2001–02

  37

  2002–03

  111

  218W
  The right to acquire is a demand led scheme that enables housing association tenants to purchase their rented home at a discount. No estimates have been made of sales over the next three years.

  Guidance to tenants

  The Government have no plans to amend the guidance issued to tenants.

  Discounts

  The Government have no plans to amend the discount offered under the Right to Acquire scheme.

  Repayment of discount

  The Government intend that the measures in the draft Housing Bill designed to modernise the Right to Buy, including increasing the clawback period for repayment of discount from three to five years, will also apply to the Right to Acquire scheme.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many homes were transferred from local authority ownership in(a) all English local authorities and (b) rural English local authorities under (i) the right-to-buy scheme and (ii) registered social landlords in each year since 1996. [117990]

  Keith Hill
  The figures available are tabled.

  Homes transferred from local authority ownerships

  Right to buy scheme sales

  Transfers to registered social landlords

  England

  Of which rural Las

  England

  Of which rural Las

  1996–97

  33,206

  1—

  22,534

  1—

  1997–98

  41,329

  1—

  35,701

  1—

  1998–99

  40,272

  7,212

  76,543

  26,425

  1999–2000

  54,251

  9,556

  96,755

  15,526

  2000–01

  52,380

  8,137

  132,462

  28,730

  2001–02

  51,968

  7,744

  35,687

  17,370

  1 Not available

  Rough Sleepers
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress he has made in assisting local authorities to reduce the number of rough sleepers. [119458]

  Yvette Cooper
  As of June 2002, local authority statistics show that 600 people were sleeping rough on any one night. This figure sustained the Prime Minister's target to reduce rough sleeping by at least two-thirds from a baseline figure of 1,850 in June 1998.

  The Homelessness Directorate within the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister brings together the work of the former Rough Sleepers Unit, the Bed and Breakfast Unit and a team to ensure the effective implementation of the Homelessness Act 2002 and assist local authorities in the development of strategies to tackle homelessness.

  The Homelessness Directorate has a revenue budget this year of £70 million and is providing grant support to local authorities to help them implement homelessness strategies and where necessary bed and breakfast action plans and rough sleeping strategies. To ensure the two-thirds reduction is sustained, key local authorities have been asked to draw up strategies for their areas for the period up to 31 March 2004 in consultation with local voluntary agencies and other partner organisations.
  219W
  The Homelessness Directorate is continuing to work closely with local authorities, particularly where rough sleeping remains at a significant level.

  Social Exclusion
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the role of transport in tackling social exclusion. [119455]

  Yvette Cooper
  Good transport provision that enables people to access the services they need when they need them is essential in promoting social inclusion.

  This was highlighted in the recent Social Exclusion Unit report "Making the Connections: Final Report on Transport and Social Exclusion", which aims to tackle social exclusion by ensuring people can get to work and key services and to reduce the disproportionate impact of traffic on disadvantaged areas. This does not just involve improving transport but changing where and how services are delivered.

  The report introduces a new framework—accessibility planning—to be led by transport authorities when preparing and implementing their second Local Transport Plans (due in 2005). This process aims to improve joint working between authorities and a range of other local partners in identifying and tackling accessibility problems.

  This will be complemented by a comprehensive cross-Government programme to make it easier for people on low incomes to access work and key services.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Criminal Justice
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress in implementing the Review of the Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland. [119725]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government are making good progress in taking forward the implementation of the Review of the Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland. I wish to take this opportunity to announce a number of significant developments.

  First, the updated Implementation Plan for the Criminal Justice Review is being published today. The updated Implementation Plan sets out an ambitious programme of transformational change designed to modernise and enhance public confidence in the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. It reports on the significant and encouraging progress which has already been made, and sets out clearly how the remaining work will be taken forward and the timescales over which this will be achieved.

  Copies of the updated Implementation Plan have been placed in the Library.

  Second, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in consultation with the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General, has appointed the right hon. the Lord Clyde as independent Justice Oversight Commissioner for Northern Ireland.
  220W
  The Oversight Commissioner will provide public assurance about the implementation of the changes in criminal justice arrangements and structures in Northern Ireland set out in the updated Implementation Plan.

  Copies of the Oversight Commissioner's terms of reference were placed in the Library on 18 December 2002.

  Third, the Secretary of State has appointed Mr. Kit Chivers as Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice in Northern Ireland, as required by section 45 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002.

  The Chief Inspector will assist in the establishment of the new independent Criminal Justice Inspectorate recommended in the "Review of the Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland". The new Inspectorate will play a vital role in ensuring that individual criminal justice agencies in Northern Ireland are meeting their objectives and those set for them by the Government, as well as ensuring that the criminal justice system works effectively in a 'joined up' way and as a coherent whole. It will also be responsible for ensuring the proper expenditure of public resources.

  The functions of the Chief Inspector are set out in sections 46–49 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002.

TRANSPORT

  Children's Car Seats
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what duty there is for car hire firms when providing children's car seats to ensure that the seats meet current safety standards; and what requirements there are for car hire firms to ensure that children's car seats are properly fitted and appropriate to the weight of the intended child passenger. [119166]

  Mr. Darling
  Under seat belt wearing legislation, the driver of a vehicle is responsible for ensuring that children under 14 years use child restraints or adult belts, as appropriate, in accordance with the regulations. There is nothing in this legislation to require hire companies to provide appropriate child restraints for customers or ensure that they are properly fitted. The provision and fitting of appropriate child restraints is a matter between a hire company and their customers.

  A46 and A453
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he expects construction work to begin on the planned dualling of the A46 Fosse Way between Widmerpool and Newark-on-Trent; [119171]

  (2) when he expects construction work to commence on the planned dualling of the A453 trunk road between Kegworth and Clifton in Nottinghamshire. [119172] I

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 13 June 2003]: I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews, to write to the right hon. Member.
  221W
  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. Kenneth Clarke, dated 18 June 2003:

  I have been asked by the Secretary of State for Transport to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the start dates for construction work on the proposed dualling schemes on the A46 between Widmerpool and Newark and the A453 between Kegworth and Clifton in Nottinghamshire.

  Public consultation on our preferred option for the A46 scheme commenced at the end of March this year and local exhibitions were held in April. The public consultation period ends on 20 June 2003. The future programme depends on how quickly the various statutory processes can be completed but we are currently planning to announce a preferred route in Spring 2004, with a start of works sometime during 2007.

  The proposals for the A53 scheme are at an early stage. As a result of recommendations made in the A453 Nottingham to M1 Multi-Modal Study, the Secretary of State for Transport announced last December that he was minded to include a scheme in the Targeted Programme of Improvements (TPI). At the same time, he asked the Highways Agency to carry out further preliminary assessment work. Assuming that a scheme is included in the TPI later this year, construction work is currently scheduled to commence in 2008.

  As with the A46, achievement of this date is subject to the satisfactory completion of the required statutory procedures.

  If you would like any further details about these proposals, our staff would be pleased to help. The Project Manager for the A46 scheme is Geoff Bethel and the Project Sponsor for the A453 scheme is John Holt. Both can be contacted at the Agency's offices at Broadway, Broad Street, Birmingham B15 1BL; Geoff on 0121 678 8137 and John on 0121 678 8314.

  Air Accidents Investigation Branch
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the average length of time is for the publication of reports by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch following the air accident under investigation. [119707]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The average length of time taken to publish a report following an AAIB investigation is 28 weeks.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many reports have been published by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch(a) within 12 months of and (b) more than 12 months after the accident under investigation in each year since 1996. [119710]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number of field and AARF (Form to Pilot) investigations conducted within the UK, broken down by time taken to publish report

  Less than 12 months

  More than 12 months

  1996

  335

  7

  1997

  317

  16

  1998

  360

  27

  1999

  331

  28

  2000

  271

  11

  2001

  261

  31

  2002

  1239

  21

  1 In addition, there are 29 investigations to be published that are less than 12 months old.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff were employed in the Air Accidents Investigation Branch in each year since 1996. [119711]
  222W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of staff employed by the AAIB by year since 1996 is in the table.

  Number

  1996

  42

  1997

  44

  1998

  46

  1999

  44

  2000

  44

  2001

  46

  2002

  50

  2003

  46

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many personnel, broken down by grade, are employed in the Air Accidents Investigation Branch. [119875]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number and grades of staff employed by the AAIB on 16 June 2003 is in the table.

  Grade

  Number

  SGB 1

  2

  Divisional Secretary

  1

  Personal Secretary

  1

  Administration Officer

  5

  PGSE

  1

  Executive Officer

  3

  HPTO

  1

  Higher Executive Officer

  1

  G7 (Inspectors)

  25

  G6 (Principal Inspectors)

  4

  G5 (DCIAA)

  1

  G4 (CIAA)

  1

  Total

  46

  Congestion
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what his Department's policy is on exempting motorcycles, scooters and mopeds from further congestion charging schemes; and if he will make a statement; [119927]

  (2) what plans his Department has to promote the use of powered two-wheelers in reducing congestion; if he plans to introduce legislation to mandate exemptions for powered two-wheelers from future congestion charges and road pricing schemes; and if he will make a statement. [119928]

  Mr. Jamieson
  With the help of the Advisory Group on Motorcycling the Government are currently exploring a number of important issues relating to the role of motorcycling in an integrated transport policy, including congestion. The key workstreams should be completed by 2004, when we aim to determine a strategy for motorcycling.

  We will consult on the scope of a uniform minimum standard of exemptions and concessions once we have had an opportunity to take into account the experiences gained from road user charging schemes in London and Durham. In the meantime it is a matter for those local authorities developing charging schemes to decide how to manage such vehicles within their schemes.

  Motorways
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment the Government have made of the(a) availability and (b) accessibility of designated rest areas on motorways; and how many rest areas there are on each motorway. [119858]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Motorists wanting to take a break in the course of their journey can stop at motorway service areas, which are available at approximately 30-mile intervals on most of the motorway network in England. I am arranging for a map showing the location of existing motorway service areas, from which may be deduced the number of rest areas on each motorway, to he placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Network Rail
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list(a) Network Rail's rail land disposals, broken down by (i) date and (ii) value, and (b) the occasions on which the Rail Regulator has intervened to block rail land sales, in each of the last five years. [119317]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Office of the Rail Regulator advises that the regulatory accounts of Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (and formerly Railtrack PLC) show income from land being £73 million for the financial year 2001–02. The unaudited figure for 2002–03 is £51 million. A breakdown of income per land case is not available. Data are not available prior to 2001–02.

  Since the introduction of the land disposal licence condition by the Rail Regulator in November 2001, the Regulator has received 58 requests for consent from Network Rail (and formerly Railtrack plc). The Regulator has consented to 40 of these requests, refused consent on nine occasions, with nine requests awaiting a decision.

  This information is set out in the following table.

  Case

  Outcome

  1. Lee

  Consent granted 14 March 2002

  2. Netherfield

  Consent granted 14 March 2002

  3. Salford

  Consent granted 20 March 2002

  4. Castle Bromwich

  Consent granted 20 March 2002

  5. Grimethorpe

  Consent granted 27 March 2002

  6. Bristol Parkway

  Consent granted 30 April 2002

  7. Plymouth Intercity House

  Consent granted 3 May 2002

  8. Cardiff Virgil Street

  Consent granted 3 May 2002

  9. Preston Strand Level Crossing

  Consent granted 3 May 2002

  10. Salisbury

  Consent refused 7 June 2002

  11. Birkenhead

  Consent granted 21 June 2002

  12. Borehamwood

  Consent refused 27 June 2002

  13. Stone

  Consent granted 27 June 2002

  14. East Kilbride

  Consent granted 19 July 2002

  15. Henley-in-Arden

  Consent granted 25 July 2002

  16. Rufford & Clipstone

  Consent granted 09 August 2002

  17. Bristol East

  Consent refused 13 August 2002

  18. Heighten

  Consent granted 27 August 2002

  19. St. Mary Cray

  Consent granted 29 August 2002

  20. Beckenham Junction

  Consent granted 29 August 2002

  21. Penge East

  Consent granted 29 August 2002

  22. Hove

  Consent refused 5 September 2002

  23. Hastings

  Consent granted 19 September 2002

  24. Dunfermline

  Consent granted 7 October 2002

  25. Kirkby-in-Ashfield

  Consent granted 11 October 2002

  26. Bredbury

  Consent granted 11 October 2002

  27. Hexham

  Consent granted 18 October 2002

  28. Salisbury

  Consent granted 24 October 2002

  29. Woodley

  Consent granted 22 November 2002

  224W

  Case

  Outcome

  30. Fratton

  Consent granted 22 November 2002

  31. Barking

  Consent refused 2 December 2002

  32. Shildon South

  Consent granted 11 December 2002

  33. Heaton

  Consent refused 20 December 2002

  34. Harwich Town

  Consent granted 20 December 2002.

  35. East Grinstead

  Consent refused 20 December 2002

  36. Formby

  Consent granted 19 December 2002

  37. Sutton-in-Ashfield

  Consent granted 24 January 2003

  38. Barry

  Consent granted 29 November 2002

  39. Ipswich

  Consent granted 21 February 2003

  40. Norwich

  Consent refused 21 February 2003

  41. Hethersett

  Consent granted 21 February 2003

  42. Bedford

  Consent granted 7 March 2003

  43. Chester

  Consent refused 23 March 2003

  44. Wigan

  Consent granted 18 March 2003

  45. Braintree

  Consent granted 21 March 2003

  46. Boston

  Consent granted 7 April 2003

  47. Wolverton

  Consent granted 22 April 2003

  48. Wembley

  Consent granted 29 April 2003

  49. St. Albans

  Consent granted 22 May 2003

  50. Rutherglen

  Pending

  51. Glasgow Hayburn

  Pending

  52. Edinburgh

  Pending

  53. Cranmore

  Pending

  54. Sankey

  Pending

  55. Carnoustie

  Pending

  56. Heaton

  Pending

  57. Cardiff Saunders Road

  Pending

  58. Bognor Regis

  Pending

  Paper Supplies
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 23 January 2003,Official Report, column 514W, on paper supplies, whether any of the paper or paper products supplied to his Department by Premier Paper are supplied by Stora Enso's Veitsiluoto Mill in Finland; and what assessment has been made of whether this paper contains (a) timber from old growth forests and (b) timber that may have been logged illegally in Russia. [117545]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Paper and paper products supplied to my Department by Premier Paper are not supplied from Stora Enso's Veitsiluoto Mill in Finland.

  Over 94 per cent. of the paper that we use is made from material containing a high proportion of post consumer waste. Our approach is to phase out virgin paper for non-specialist uses and where it is used we specify that it should be made from pulp that comes from sources that have been independently verified as legal and sustainably managed in accordance with Government Policy. This should ensure that the Department does not purchase any paper that contains (a) timber from old growth forests and (b) timber that may have been logged illegally in Russia. However, I am taking steps to ensure not only that the policy is understood and implemented but also that it is being policed.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans the Government has to amend the Railways (Safety Critical Work) Regulations 1994 in relation to the working time for train drivers; and if he will make a statement. [119720]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 17 June 2003]: The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) are currently reviewing the Railways (Safety Critical Work)

  225W
  Regulations 1994 and considering whether the provisions relating to fatigue are adequate for all safety critical railway workers, including train drivers. As part of this process, the HSE are focusing on the management of fatigue and not just the number of hours worked.

  Roadworks
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of roadworks was conducted by(a) utilities, (b) local authorities and (c) the Highways Agency in the last 12 months. [119558]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Comparative figures are not available at this stage. However, we have appointed consultants —Halcrow—to monitor the number of utility works carried out on roads in England. They will be reporting to us later this summer with figures for the period April 2002 to March 2003. Copies of their report will be placed in the Libraries of the House in due course. Copies of their 2001–02 report have already been placed in the House Libraries.

  Royal Mail
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what impact the decision of Royal Mail to switch the transport of mail from rail to road will have on the Government's commitment to expanding the transportation of goods by rail. [119370]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government remain committed to increasing rail's modal share of the freight market. The Strategic Rail Authority's "Freight Progress Report", published in May 2003, explains the achievements to date and sets out its future plans for increasing rail's overall share of freight traffic. Copies of the report are in the Libraries of the House.

  South Coast Multi-Modal Study
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will announce his decision on the south coast multi-modal study. [120277]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are currently considering the final report and recommendations from a number of multi-modal studies together with the views of the respective Regional Planning Bodies. We expect to be in a position to make an announcement before the summer recess.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what basis the Strategic Rail Authority has intervened in negotiations and agreements which have been reached between the managements of the train operating companies and the rail unions. [119373]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Negotiations and agreements between rail unions and train operating companies are matters for those bodies. Franchise agreements do, however, require the Strategic Rail Authority to approve any proposed pay agreement that would exceed the average earnings index either in the last 12 months of a franchise or in later years because these would result in liabilities for successor train operators.

PRIME MINISTER

  Intelligence Services (Corruption)
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what assessment he has made of levels of corruption within the British intelligence services; and if he will make a statement; [118639]

  (2) whether he has identified corrupt activity within the intelligence services in the United Kingdom over the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [118640]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) on 4 June 2003,Official Report, columns 147–48, and to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) on 4 June 2003, Official Report, columns 151–52.

  Iraq
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the officials, with their responsibilities, who contributed to the final text of the dossiers on Iraq which were published and presented to Parliament before the war in Iraq. [117135]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on 24 February 2003,Official Report, column 254W and on 3 March 2003, Official Report, columns 856–57W.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he will take to ensure that there is a thorough scientific examination of the quality of the evidence provided to hon. Members for the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. [118468]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) on 4 June 2003,Official Report, columns 147–48 and the answering right hon. Friend the Leader of the House gave the hon. Member on 5 June 2003, Official Report, column 318.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister whether persons(a) in his office and (b) in the security and intelligence services have been subject to penalty, reprimand or disciplinary action related to their conduct in the preparation of the dossiers on Iraq published before the war. [118880]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) on 4 June 2003,Official Report, columns 147–48, to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) on 4 June 2003, Official Report, columns 151–52 and to the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) on 9 June 2003, Official Report, column 573W.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make an assessment of the consistency with the terms of(a) the Open Government Code and (b) the Freedom

  227W
  of Information Act 2000 of the content of the parliamentary written answers he has provided since June 2001. [117617]

  The Prime Minister
  Answers to parliamentary questions are provided in accordance with the terms of the Ministerial Code. The Freedom of Information Act comes into force in 2005.

  Security Services
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the system within the security services for maintaining contact with the press. [119665]

  The Prime Minister
  In line with ministerial responsibilities, media inquiries about the Secret Intelligence Service are handled by the FCO Press Office. Media inquiries about the Security Service are handled by the Home Office Press Office. GCHQ has its own dedicated Press Office which works closely with the FCO Press Office.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Medical Staff
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, how many medical staff are employed in the Palace of Westminster; what the(a) hours of employment and (b) grades of qualification of such staff are; what the figures were in 1993; and if he will make a statement. [119114]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  The Occupational Health. Safety and Welfare Service, which provides medical services to both Houses, currently has a consultant occupational health physician working one day a week, a medical adviser who works three days a week, and three qualified nurses (one full-time, two part-time). Ir addition, the Occupational Health Manager is a qualified nurse, and is full-time.

  Records for 1993 are no longer available.

  September Sittings
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what estimate the Commission has mad of the additional costs arising from the House sitting for a short period in September. [119256]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  The overall cost of running the House administration (excluding capital works etc.) in 2002–03 was some £133 million, giving an average daily cost of the order of £365,000. The difference in cost between a sitting day and a non-sitting day is negligible: the major costs of accommodation and staffing are no affected appreciably by the change to Septembe sittings. These figures do not include the cost of paying Members' salaries or allowances, which are not normally regarded as part of the cost of running till House itself.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Analogue Switch-off
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of public awareness of analogue switch-off; and what percentage of the UK population she estimates are aware of the proposed deadline for switch-off. [119651]

  Estelle Morris
  No formal assessment has been made. Research commissioned from MORI by DCMS in spring 2002 into consumer attitudes to digital television found that 56 per cent. of people were aware of analogue switch off between 2006 and 2010, which compared with 44 per cent. in 2001. No figures are available for 2003.

  HMS Vengeance
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if she will place HMS Vengeance on the Historic Ships List; [120057]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the criteria for eligibility to place a ship on the Historic Ships List; and what powers she has to make exceptions to these rules. [120058]

  Estelle Morris
  The Government welcomes the efforts of those involved in the preservation of the country's maritime heritage. However, decisions on which ships should be included in the Core Collection and Designated Vessels lists, and the specific and well established criteria which inform those decisions, are a matter for the National Historic Ships Committee (NHSC) and not for Government. These lists and criteria are reviewed regularly by the NHSC.

  Digital Broadcasting
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture. Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the percentage of residents in(a) north west England. (b) Cumbria and (c) South Lakeland who are able to receive digital audio broadcasting on terrestria' transmitters. [119254]

  Estelle Morris
  This Department does not hold these figures. They are held separately by the BBC and Digital Radio Development Bureau (DRDB). According to the BBC and DRDB:

  BBC

  (a) North west England: approximately 75 per cent. of the population is currently reached, (expected to rise by end of 2004 to about 85 per cent.);

  (b) Cumbria: no coverage at present;

  (c) South Lakeland: no coverage at present, (but expected to reach half the population by the end of 2004).

  Commercial Radio

  (a) North west England: approximately 75 per cent. of the population is currently reached;

  (b) Cumbria: approximately 33 per cent. of the population i currently reached;

  (c) South Lakeland: There is limited coverage, but detailed information on population coverage is not available.

  229W
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the level of take-up of digital television services has been from 1998 to the most recent date for which figures are available, broken down by region. [119648]

  Estelle Morris
  This information is not available currently. Subscriber figures for the take up of digital television services are not available on a regional basis, as the data is commercially sensitive and therefore confidential to the pay television companies. However the Office for National Statistics hope to be able to produce figures on the level of take up of all digital television services on a regional basis in the future.

  Digital television receiving platform

  Possible viewing households

  Actual viewing households

  digital terrestrial television (figures based on core coverage from main six digital multiplexes)

  17.5 million (73 per cent.)

  1.4 million (5.7 per cent.)

  digital satellite (figures do not take into account planning restrictions or restrictive covenants)

  23.5 million (98 per cent.)

  7.36 million of which: 6.7 million (subscribers) (27.2 per cent.) 660,000 (free to view only) (2.7 percent.)

  digital cable

  6 million (25 per cent.)

  2.1 million (8.5 per cent.)

  DSL

  Not known

  (0.05 per cent.)

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport with reference to the Digital Action Plan, what her definition of digital television being affordable is; and what criteria she used to come to this definition. [119650]

  Estelle Morris
  We have said that switching to digital television must be an affordable option for the vast majority of people; and as a target indicator of affordability, 95 per cent. of consumers must have access to digital equipment. One of the key tasks for Government in the Digital Action Plan is to conduct a comprehensive review of progress towards digital switchover, with particular reference to the accessibility, availability and affordability tests announced in September 1999. I have asked the Digital Television Consumer Expert Group announced on 17 June to help the Government with this.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether recent changes to the concessionary TV licence fee regulations will require people who are over 65, who previously had concessionary TV licences and who work part-time, to pay full rates; and if she will make a statement. [119381]

  Estelle Morris
  The recent changes to the Accommodation for Residential Care (ARC) concessionary television licence scheme, to introduce preserved rights to the concession for existing beneficiaries, have not altered the categories of resident eligible for the concession. These are disabled persons, mentally disordered persons and retired persons aged 60 years or more. The BBC has statutory responsibility for the administration of the television licensing system, including responsibility for determining entitlement to the ARC concession in individual cases. However, I understand that residents aged 60 years or more who are either not in paid employment, are in paid employment but work no more than 15 hours per week,
  230W
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many and what percentage of(a) people and (b) households in the United Kingdom (i) receive and (ii) can receive digital television by (A) digital terrestrial, (B) digital satellite, (C) digital cable and (D) other means, broken down by region. [119649]

  Estelle Morris
  The information is not available in the form requested. The coverage information available from the Independent Television Commission is calculated using the 24 million UK households.

  For the first quarter of 2003 the estimated UK figures are:

  or are in paid employment but do not work in their lifetime career, are considered to fall within the category of retired persons aged 60 years or more.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether sheltered housing schemes which bought TV licences at full cost before 1 April will have the fees reimbursed to take account of recent changes in regulations; and if she will make a statement. [119382]

  Estelle Morris
  The BBC has statutory responsibility for the administration of the television licensing system. This includes responsibility for determining refund policy. However, I understand that, in cases where residents in sheltered housing have obtained full fee licences but have since become entitled to preserved rights to the Accommodation for Residential Care concession, the BBC's policy is to offer refunds for full, unexpired calendar months from 1 April this year, when the amending regulations came into effect.

TREASURY

  Access for Disabled People
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [117357]

  John Healey
  The Chancellor's departments, agencies and non-departmental public bodies are working together to ensure that both their current and future websites are accessible to the blind and partially sighted.

  The Inland Revenue's site has been won the RNIB's accessible website award, HM Customs and Excise are current redesigning their site to conform with the RNIB's `See it Right' standard and HM Treasury's site has been designed to meet the world wide web

  231W
  consortium's web accessibility (W3C WAI) guidelines and was recently recognised by a National Audit Office report as one of the most accessible in government.

  The National Savings and Investment website has been built to meet the W3C WAI guidelines and the Valuation Office (VOA) is working to be fully compliant with the Office of the E-envoy guidelines.

  The Debt Management Office's website is currently being re-designed. Accessibility to the website is a priority and the DMO will be following the RNIB Accessibility Best Practice guidelines in taking forward this work. National Statistics currently meets all but one of the priority W3C WAI objectives and will be seeking to address areas of non-compliance when it redevelops its website, subject to specific data visualisation and presentation issues. The Royal Mint's current site is programmed to meet W3C WAI objectives and accessibility will be central to the forthcoming redevelopment of the site. The main websites of the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) and OGC

  £

  Department

  (i) 2003–04

  (ii) 2004–05

  HM Treasury

  0

  0

  Inland Revenue

  Not yet available

  Not yet available

  HM Customs and Excise

  2,570,000

  4,300,000

  Office of National Statistics

  0

  0

  Debt Management Office

  529,000

  This information cannot be disclosed. Exemption 6 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information applies

  Government Actuary's Department

  59,000

  62,000

  Valuation Office Agency

  270,000

  Not yet available

  Royal Mint

  This information cannot be disclosed. Exemption 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information applies

  See column (i). Exemption 7 applies

  Office of Government Commerce

  0

  0

  OGC Buying Solutions

  40,000

  0

  National Savings and Investments (NSI)

  2,000,000

  3,000,000

  BAE Systems
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish his assessment of the proposals submitted by BAE Systems for the provision of Hawk training aircraft to the Royal Air Force; what matters he raised in representations to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning the BAE Systems proposals; and if he will make a statement. [119853]

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what instructions he has issued to the Ministry of Defence relating to the purchasing of the BAE Advanced Jet Trainer; [119726]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the factors that will determine Treasury approval for the Ministry of Defence to purchase a new Advanced Jet Trainer for the RAF. [119727]

  John Healey
  The Ministry of Defence is carefully evaluating the proposals submitted by BAE Systems on the Advanced Jet Trainer. The Secretary of State for Defence will consult Treasury Ministers and other colleagues when this evaluation is complete.232W
  buying solutions have been built in line with the Office of E-envoy guidance and while some older sites are not yet fully compliant, a website accessibility champion at OGCbuying.solutions, and a team including an expert on the application of the relevant standards for web design at OGC, will be responsible for ensuring the accessibility of all sites to partially sited or blind people.

  Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [114426]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For(a), I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 19 June 2002, Official Report, columns 387–390W; and for (b), to the Financial Secretary's answer to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 5 March 2003, Official Report, columns 1061–63W. The information relating (i) to 2003–04 and (ii) 2004–05 is given in the table.

  HM Treasury will take all relevant factors into account when considering proposals to provide the armed forces with an Advanced Jet Trainer, including the impact that any decision might have on the economy of the UK. Our objectives on this are clear and are shared across Government. We are determined to ensure that the armed forces get the best possible equipment at the best possible value for money to the taxpayer. We are committed to the Defence Industrial Policy launched last year, and to a globally competitive aerospace industry.

  Birth Statistics
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many children were born in 2002–03; and how many women had their first child in that year. [119919]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Willetts, dated June 2003:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the number of children born in 2002–03, and how many women had their first child in that year.
  233W
  Births data for the first quarter of 2003 are not yet available. In the calendar year 2002 there were 596,122 live births in England and Wales. The latest year for which estimates are available that give whether a birth is a mother's first live birth or not is 2001. For that year it is estimated that 248,000 women had a first live birth in England and Wales. There were 594,634 live births in 2001.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total yield in a full year of imposing capital gains tax at present rates on the disposal by individuals of their only or main residences. [119369]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The latest estimated costs of exempting gains arising on disposal of a main or only residence were given in Chapter A of Budget 2003.These costs are not the same as the yield from abolition of the relief as consequential effects on the housing market would substantially reduce the yield. Reliable estimates of the yield from imposing capital gains tax at present rates on the disposal by individuals of their only or main residences are available only at disproportionate cost.

  Child Benefit
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what provisions he plans to ensure that child benefit continues to be paid without interruption to the father of dependent children when his wife dies. [118984]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Where a child benefit claimant dies and their partner wants to claim child benefit instead, he or she needs to make a new claim. They have up to three months to do this and not suffer a break in their right to payment. The Inland Revenue will do all it can, in such cases, to ensure claims are processed as quickly as possible and to maintain continuity of payment.

  The surviving partner should also claim child tax credit.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to allow those already in receipt of child benefit and who are eligible for child tax credit to receive the credit without resubmitting information provided for receipt of child benefit. [119522]

  Dawn Primarolo
  To claim child tax credit the claimant, or claimants, are asked to provide their details and those of the children they want to claim for. The child information required has been kept to a minimum. It includes information not relevant for child benefit purposes such as whether disability benefits are received for a child.

  Although, in most cases, the person entitled to child benefit for a child will be the same as the recipient of child tax credit for him or her, that is not always the case. So it is right that people should be asked to confirm the details of the children they are claiming for.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much arrears of national insurance contributions was reclaimed from employers in the construction industry in each year since 1999. [118829]
  234W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The Class 1 and Class 1 A national insurance contributions recovered from employers recorded as being within the construction industry are shown in the table. These figures represent national insurance contributions recovered by Employer Compliance officers and relate to a range of circumstances where employers failed to account properly for Class 1 and Class lA national insurance.

  £ million

  1999–2000

  12.3

  2000–01

  9.3

  2001–02

  9.2

  2002–03

  10.8

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 6 May 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Julie Walker; and if he will reprove the Tax Credit office for failing to fulfil its commitment to reply within 15 working days. [119859]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue replied to the right hon. Member on 13 June 2003 and very much regret having been unable to do so sooner. The Tax Credit office aims to reply to 80 per cent. of complaints within 15 working days and will measure their performance and report against that aim in due course.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 1 May 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Teresa Cole; and if he will reprove the Tax Credit office for failing to fulfil its commitment to reply within 15 working days. [119860]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue replied to the right hon. Member on 13 June 2003 and very much regret having been unable to do so sooner. The Tax Credit office aims to reply to 80 per cent. of complaints within 15 working days and will measure their performance and report against that aim in due course.

  Inheritance Tax
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason the cost of professional advice in executing a will subject to inheritance tax is not allowable against the value of the estate. [119301]

  Dawn Primarolo
  IHT is charged on the value of the estate at death net of liabilities existing at that time. Expenses incurred after death do not affect the deceased person's net assets at death, and accordingly, have never been deductible, with the single exception of an allowance for reasonable funeral expenses.

  Inland Revenue (Business Support Teams)
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many small businesses have received assistance from the Inland Revenue's Business Support Teams in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [119447]
  235W
  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 16 June 2003]: The Inland Revenue set up its Business Support Teams in 1999 to provide help and support to businesses and employers, particularly new and small businesses, on dealing with income tax and national insurance contributions, and payroll matters.

  In 2000–01 they assisted:

  Number

  Employers with fewer than 10 employees

  37,565

  Employers with 10 or more employees

  25,131

  Businesses

  7,539

  Prospective businesses

  1,815

  In addition, 37,547 individuals representing both employers and businesses attended technical presentations given by Business Support Teams.

  In 2001–02 they assisted:

  Number

  Employers with fewer than 10 employees

  41,652

  Employers with 10 or more employees

  20,280

  Businesses

  20,891

  Prospective businesses

  3,568

  In addition, 45,767 individuals representing both employers and businesses attended technical presentations given by Business Support Teams.

  In 2002–03 they assisted:

  Number

  Employers with fewer than 10 employees

  40,839

  Employers with 10 or more employees

  18,135

  Businesses

  36,074

  Prospective businesses

  5,318

  In addition, 64,418 individuals representing both employers and businesses attended technical presentations given by Business Support Teams.

  Iraq
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there are restrictions on imports and exports to Iraq, save those set out in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483. [117030]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I have been asked to reply.

  On 22 May 2003 the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1483 (2003). Among other things this Resolution lifted all trade and financial restrictions on Iraq, but retains the arms embargo. The terms of UNSCR 1483 will be implemented by the issue of a revocation Order under 1939 Act and following Privy Council approval, of the Orders made in Council under the UN Act 1946 all of which will come into force on 14 June 2003.

  Import and export restrictions will continue to apply in respect of goods subject to control as detailed in Orders made under the Import, Export and Customs Powers (defence) Act 1939.
  236W

  Millennium Development Targets
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has held with other Governments on financing the Millennium Development targets. [117970]

  John Healey
  The UK Government continues to press the urgent case for an International Finance Facility to raise the additional finance needed to meet the Millennium Development Goals by 2015 in all relevant national and international fora and with both developed and developing country governments.

  Support has been achieved through events such as the Chief Secretary's visit to Ethiopia, Ghana and South Africa earlier this month; an official level visit to Rwanda to address the eighth meeting of the HIPC Finance Ministers on the IFF; and a Treasury representation at the Annual Economic Commission for African Finance Ministers in Addis Ababa. At this meeting Ministers issued a Communique stating "we strongly welcome the proposed International Finance Facility as the first of its kind designed to mobilise additional resources for the poorest countries to meet the MDGs."

  The Development Committee and the IMFC discussed the IFF at the Spring Meetings in April and the Development Committee will raise it again at the Annual Meetings. Agreement was made in the Communique of the last G7 Finance Ministerial meeting to continue to focus on the Millennium Development Goals, and their financing, including facilities. At the G8 Summit in Evian, Heads of State requested that Finance Ministers report back on the IFF in advance of the Annual Meeting of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund in September 2003. The Treasury also continues to discuss the IFF in European meetings, including ECOFIN, at both Ministerial and official level.

  Motorcycle Equipment (VAT)
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reduce the rate of VAT levied on motorcycle(a) protective clothing, (b) replacement helmet visors, (c) safety equipment and (d) security equipment; and if he will make a statement. [119717]

  John Healey
  Under our long-standing formal agreements with our European partners, we are permitted to keep our existing zero rates but may not extend them or introduce new ones. As such, it is not possible to remove VAT from the items mentioned. Member states are permitted to introduce reduced rates of VAT on a prescribed list of goods and services set out in Annex H of the EC Sixth VAT Directive. However, none of the items mentioned currently feature on this list, and we cannot therefore apply a reduced rate to them at this time. The Annex H list is due to be reviewed by the European Commission later this year, and we will consider any representations for new reduced rates in the context of this review.

  Mutuality Principles
  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the potential of the principles of mutuality in the delivery of local government services. [119749]
  237W
  John Healey
  In order to improve service delivery at local and community level, the Government have looked at new structures for collaboration between local authorities and other organisations, including mutual organisations. We are aware of the potential of the mutual sector to complement local authority services in areas such as child care provision, social housing, leisure and community transport. We encourage local authorities to explore such options and opportunities in order to bring improvements in the delivery of local government services.

  National Insurance (Top-up Payments)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total value is in(a) real terms and (b) cash terms of the total amount paid in national insurance top-up payments in each year since 1992–93. [119915]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is given in the table.

  £million

  National insurance class 3 contributions receipts, UK

  Financial year

  (a) Real terms (2001–02 prices)

  (b) Cash terms

  1992–93

  68

  54

  1993–94

  50

  41

  1994–95

  70

  58

  1995–96

  63

  54

  1996–97

  74

  65

  1997–98

  77

  70

  1998–99

  59

  55

  1999–2000

  62

  59

  2000–01

  60

  58

  2001–02

  75

  75

  Note:

  Real term prices calculated using the HMT GDP deflator series.

  Source:

  The Government Actuary's Department has provided these estimates.

  Tax Credits
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for reducing delays for people applying for tax credits. [119514]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I would refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave on 12 June 2003,Official Report, column 823, to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk), and the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), on 12 June 2003, Official Report, column 828.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what target he has for the time taken to process claims for tax credits. [119521]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I would refer the hon. Member to the Inland Revenue Departmental Report 2003 (Cm 5925) and to the Inland Revenue Service Delivery Agreement 2003–06 (updated May 2003). Both are available on the Inland Revenue website at: www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk
  238W

WALES

  Agency Workers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many agency workers have been employed by the Department in each of the last two years; and at what cost to public funds. [115204]

  Peter Hain
  During the last two financial years five posts in my Department have had to be covered by agency workers at some stage or other. The number of individual agency workers who were employed in each year, and their cost, was:

  Agency workers employed

  Financial year

  Number

  Cost £

  2001–02

  11

  35,000

  2002–03

  10

  56,600

  Employment
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what projects are being put in place in Wales to increase employment opportunities for people over 55. [118050]

  Peter Hain
  New Deal 50 plus is the programme that helps increase the employability of unemployed people aged 50 and over including the over 55s. Five thousand people in Wales have found employment under New Deal 50 plus since the programme was set up in 2000.

  Unemployed people in Wales aged 50 and over also have immediate access to the work-based training grants (WBLA). Such access is not available in England or Scotland.

  The Age Positive team, which is part of the Department for Work and Pensions, promotes age diversity in employment. The team aims to increase the number of people aged 50 and over who are in employment, encourages employers to use age-diverse practices, analyses the position of older workers in the employment market and shares good practice internationally. An Age Positive campaign was launched in Cardiff on 9 June 2003.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list (1)(a) the location, (b) the purpose and (c) the cost of each overseas visit made by members of his Department since 1999; [115144]

  (2) how much his Department has spent on overseas visits in each year since 1999. [115146]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) by the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office on 22 January 2003,Official Report, column 334W. The Wales Office is committed to ensuring that staff use the most efficient and economic means when accompanying Ministers on overseas visits. All travel is undertaken fully in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.
  239W

  Rural Economy
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with(a) First Minister of the National Assembly, (b) the National Farmers Union of Wales, (c) the Farmers Union of Wales and (d) the Country Land and Business Association on the impact on the Welsh rural economy of the decreasing number of agricultural holdings in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [119336]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 16 June 2003]: I have regular meetings with the First Secretary to discuss a variety of issues in relation to agriculture. I have not yet met with any of the farming unions or the Country Land and Business Association.

  As with most rural issues, agriculture is fully devolved to the Assembly and it would therefore be for the Welsh Assembly Government to handle these issues. However, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales has regular meetings with the Assembly Minister for Environment, Planning and the Countryside to discuss a variety of issues. My ministerial colleague and I would be happy to meet with representatives from the Farming Unions and the Country Land and Business Association.

  Rural Proofing
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of the Countryside Agency to discuss rural proofing. [115575]

  Peter Hain
  I have not met with the chairman of the Countryside Agency to discuss rural proofing. The Countryside Agency is an English body, which is responsible for countryside issues in England only. The Welsh equivalent is the Countryside Council for Wales, which is the Government's statutory adviser on sustaining natural beauty, wildlife and the opportunity for outdoor enjoyment in Wales and its inshore waters.

  As with most rural issues, the matter is fully devolved to the Assembly and it would therefore be for the Welsh Assembly Government to handle these issues. However, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales has regular meetings with the Assembly Minister for Environment, Planning and the Countryside to discuss a variety of issues. My ministerial colleague and I would be happy to meet with representatives from the Countryside Council for Wales.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what assessment he has made of the humanitarian situation in Ituri, Democratic Republic of the Congo. [119553]

  Hilary Benn
  A DFID humanitarian adviser has recently returned from an assessment mission in Ituri. The first humanitarian priority for people in Ituri is basic security. The fighting in the area frequently targets civilians. Casualties and victims among civilians are far more numerous than those among fighters. After 240W
  security, medical services, clean water, sanitation. Distribution of relief items and shelter are priorities. People displaced by fighting are in the most urgent need. As a result of the assessment mission, we have allocated up to £5 million to finance proposals we expect to receive shortly from UNICEF, Save the Children and other agencies working in the area. We have already agreed a grant of £450,000 to Merlin for emergency health care in Ituri. In addition, DFID recently provided £1 million to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN OCHA) for its Emergency Humanitarian Initiative in Ituri and other emergency situations in the DRC.

  The UK is working at different levels to try to address these needs. We are supporting the wider peace process in the DRC and are contributors to the UN Mission in Congo (MON UC) and the Interim Emergency Multinational Force (IEMF) to try to bring about an improvement in security.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what assessment he has made of(a) the availability of clean water and (b) the availability and distribution of other essential provisions for displaced persons in Ituri, Democratic Republic of Congo. [119554]

  Hilary Benn
  Following on from the report of DFID's humanitarian adviser who visited north Kivu and Ituri during the week of 2 June 2003, we have assessed that clean water and relief items, including food, are a priority. Following this assessment mission, we have allocated up to £5 million to finance proposals from international NGOs and UN agencies to meet urgent humanitarian needs in Ituri.

  We have also provided £1 million to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) for Emergency Humanitarian Interventions in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and have agreed with the UN that Ituri will be a priority for these funds.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what support his Department is giving to displaced persons in Ituri, Democratic Republic of Congo. [119555]

  Hilary Benn
  A DFID humanitarian adviser visited Ituri in early June 2003 to have detailed discussions with humanitarian agencies about their support needs. As a result, we have allocated up to £5 million to finance proposals we expect to receive shortly from UNICEF, Save the Children and other agencies working in the area. We have already agreed a grant of £450,000 to Merlin for emergency health care in Ituri. In addition, DFID recently provided £1 million to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN OCHA) for its Emergency Humanitarian Initiative in Ituri and other emergency situations in the DRC.

  The UK is also contributing to the Interim Emergency Multinational Force for the stabilisation of Bunia, and is committed to helping the parties to the wider conflict in DRC to reach a lasting and peaceful solution through the early establishment of the

  241W
  proposed Transitional National Government. Only by achieving this can displaced people return home confident of their security and prospects for the future.

  Export Control Act
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what discussions the Department has had with the Department of Trade and Industry on the secondary orders for the Export Control Act 2002; and whether the Department proposed under changes to the draft orders before they were published. [119325]

  Hilary Benn
  Strategic export control policy is agreed by the four Departments involved in export licensing and policy—DFID, DTI, FCO and MOD. DFID was fully consulted prior to the publication of the January 2003 consultation document on secondary legislation.

  Food Aid
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what steps he is taking to ensure that food aid from UK charities and non-governmental organisations is reaching people in the affected areas of Zimbabwe. [119544]

  Hilary Benn
  It is a fundamental principle of the international humanitarian system that food aid be distributed to all those in most need of assistance—regardless of political affiliation. Food aid provided by the UN, bilateral donors and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) is distributed in accordance with clear criteria of vulnerability. The selection of beneficiaries is developed and checked through registration exercises within the community, and food is distributed by NGOs outside of government systems.

  Both the UN and DFID have detailed monitoring mechanisms in place to check that food is being distributed according to the agreed humanitarian principles and selection criteria, and that problems are investigated as they arise and adjustments made on an on-going basis. The UN and NGOs are committed to investigating all complaints and problems that arise and to resolve these wherever possible.

  UK NGOs and charities are playing a vital role in responding to the crisis in Zimbabwe, and DFID's country team supports and assists those present in Zimbabwe. DFID would be grateful for details of any specific concerns or complaints so that these may be investigated.

  Iraq
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what sources of expertise the Department has used for measures to restore water services in Iraq. [118940]

  Hilary Benn
  The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), UN agencies, and the Coalition Provisional Authority have made available information on water services in Iraq.

  DFID's support for the water and sanitation sector in Iraq is channelled through the ICRC, UN agencies and NGOs, which have their own sources of technical
  242W
  expertise working in collaboration with Iraqi water managers on the ground. A DFID adviser, working with the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad, specialises in infrastructure issues, including water supply.

  Liberia
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development whether his Department has suspended humanitarian aid to Liberia due to the recent escalation of fighting in Liberia. [119359]

  Hilary Benn
  We have increased our support to UN and other humanitarian aid agencies by £1.5 million in response to the displacement by fighting of up to 200,000 people into and around Monrovia. The first two grants we have made from this sum are to ICRC and Merlin. This is additional to the £1 million we provided for International Committee of the Red Cross and Médecins Sans Frontières in Liberia earlier this year.

  This year we have also given a total of £3 million to humanitarian agencies in Guinea and Sierra Leone for programmes directed at or including Liberian refugees.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what support the Department is providing to refugees who have fled recent fighting in Liberia. [119360]

  Hilary Benn
  We have provided a total of £3 million this year to UN and other agencies for programmes in Sierra Leone and Guinea providing services either wholly or partly for Liberian refugees.

  We have also provided £1 million for International Committee of the Red Cross and Médecins Sans Frontières in Liberia. In response to the recent advances by opposition forces, we have allocated an additional £1.5 million, focusing on assistance to internally displaced people in and around Monrovia, whose situation is causing greatest concern.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development whether the Department supports projects working with the Government of Liberia to reduce poverty in Liberia. [119363]

  Hilary Benn
  We have no projects directly with the Government of Liberia. The nature of the present Government and the absence of security prevents the establishment of projects to promote development and poverty reduction.

  Our activity in Liberia is confined to support for international agencies providing humanitarian relief. We have provided a total of £2.5 million this year for this purpose, including £1.5 million in response to the recent displacement of people into and around Monrovia.

  The UK strongly supports the efforts of ECOWAS to negotiate a ceasefire. This the necessary first step towards peace and security, which are the conditions needed for development and poverty reduction programmes to be put in place.
  243W
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will make a statement on the impact of recent fighting in Liberia on the Department's work in(a) Liberia and (b) Sierra Leone. [119358]

  Hilary Benn
  There has been no direct impact on our work in Sierra Leone. We have, this year, contributed £1.4 million to UNICEF, ICRC and UNHCR in Sierra Leone. The grant to UNHCR is specifically for care of Liberian refugees. Those to ICRC and UNICEF are for services that include refugees. The instability in Liberia underlines the importance of the strengthening of the security sector in Sierra Leone, which is a key part of our programme.

  We have no bilateral programme in Liberia. We support humanitarian programmes managed by UN and other agencies. Earlier this year, we provided £1 million to ICRC and Medecins Sans Fronti"res. In response to the recent worsening of the situation, we have agreed an additional £1.5 million for humanitarian activity. The first two grants from this sum have been to ICRC and Merlin.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  British Sign Language
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 7 April 2003,Official Report, column 85W, on British sign language, what action is being taken to ensure that (a) rural areas and (b) Cornwall are represented on the consultation regarding the additional funding for raising awareness of British sign language; and if he will list those being consulted on how the additional funding should be allocated. [118479]

  Maria Eagle
  We are in the process of establishing a BSL working group comprising organisations of and for deaf people and Government Departments to facilitate the process of consultation. The organisations represented on the working group are the British Deaf Association, the Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People, the Federation of Deaf People, the National Deaf Children's Society, The Royal National Institute for Deaf People and the UK Council on Deafness. The working group will be coming forward with proposals for our approval.

  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 carers of people who are affected by asbestosis for carers benefit. [117109]

  Maria Eagle
  People aged 16 or over who care for a person with asbestosis are entitled to carer's allowance if they meet the usual qualifying conditions for the benefit. The person they care for must also receive either attendance allowance, the middle or highest rate care component of disability living allowance or the equivalent rate of constant attendance allowance paid under the Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit scheme or the War Disablement Pensions scheme.

  Crisis Loans
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what criteria the Department has for awarding crisis loans. [119123]

  Maria Eagle
  Crisis loans can be paid to anyone in an emergency or as a result of a disaster, when they have no other means of preventing serious damage or risk to their, or a member of their family's, health or safety. The applicant does not have to be in receipt of any benefit or pension, but any income or capital which they have will usually be taken into account by the decision maker.

  Part 3 of the Discretionary Social Fund Guide (para 4700 et seq.), a copy of which is in the Library provides examples of the circumstances in which a crisis loan can be awarded.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimates he has made of the rate of(a) cash and (b) case compliance under the new Child Support Scheme. [112336]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Webb, dated 23 May 2003:

  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.

  You asked what estimates have been made of the rate of (a) cash and (b) case compliance under the new Child Support Scheme.

  I will be providing the Secretary of State with a full set of information after the first quarter of the Agency's business year. The Secretary of State intends to report this information to the House.

DEFENCE

  Armed Services Accommodation
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was spent on renting private accommodation for armed services personnel(a) in the last financial year and (b) this financial year to date. [119394]

  Mr. Caplin
  The following figures show expenditure on substitute Service accommodation in Great Britain rented by the Ministry of Defence from the private sector when accommodation according to entitlement, within daily travelling distance from the work place, could not otherwise be provided for Service personnel and their families.

  £million

  Financial year 2002–03

  33.8

  1 April to 31 May 2003

  5.7

  Roughly one third of the figures quoted is for family accommodation.
  245W
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much(a) single living accommodation and (b) service family accommodation was empty in each month since July 2002; and if he will make a statement. [119395]

  Mr. Caplin
  The figures for empty single living accommodation are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The approximate figures for vacant Service Family Accommodation (SFA) in mainland United Kingdom at the end of each month from July 2002 to May 2003 are as follows:

  Number

  July 2002

  9,000

  August 2002

  9,100

  September 2002

  9,100

  October 2002

  9,200

  November 2002

  9,300

  December 2002

  9,300

  January 2003

  9,100

  February 2003

  9,200

  March 2003

  8,200

  April 2003

  8,200

  May 2003

  8,300

  Since January 2000, some 12,000 surplus SFA have been released for disposal. The disposal programme will continue, but the numbers released are constrained by Service deployment uncertainties.

  BSkyB
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effects of the recent decision by BSkyB to turn off BBC TV and radio on the provision of a TV and radio service for the British forces living and working in Italy. [119724]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence is aware of changes introduced recently by various broadcasters, including the BBC, to restrict reception within Europe in compliance with international rights and licence agreements. It is with these agreements in mind that the Ministry of Defence provides bespoke radio and television services overseas to British service personnel and their families (the "entitled audience") under the banner of the British Forces Broadcasting Service (BFBS) through a contract with the Services Sound and Vision Corporation (SSVC) which is an independent limited company and registered charity. The availability of BFBS services to any specific location is, however, subject to practicality and affordability. The MOD is, in conjunction with SSVC and British command staffs based in Naples, currently reviewing the means by which it may be possible to extend the BFBS television service to entitled personnel in the Naples area and other locations in Italy. The deliberations are being undertaken independently of, and without reference to, any changes introduced by other broadcasters.

  Colchester Garrison
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements he has made for security and management matters at the Colchester Garrison 246W
  resulting from the disposal for civilian occupation of dwellings previously occupied by Service families; and if he will make a statement. [119771]

  Mr. Caplin
  There are regular routine patrols by Military and Ministry of Defence police. However, the properties in Colchester that are included in the disposals programme are not 'on camp' but are a mile or so from the unit and near a main road and there have never been any access restrictions. Vigilance is maintained, where properties are unoccupied, in order to discourage vandalism, and no serious problems have been reported.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 9 June 2003,Official Report, column 649W, on Colchester Garrison, (1) how many of the four-bedroomed services family houses are to be disposed of; how many other dwellings are to be disposed of; when this will occur; and what the arrangements are for the disposal; [119902]

  (2) if he will offer the empty service family houses at Colchester Garrison to Colchester borough council. [119901]

  Mr. Ingram
  40 Service family houses in Colchester are being disposed of in March 2004, of which 24 are four-bedroomed and 16 three-bedroomed. These properties have been selected for disposal because they are of lesser quality than other properties in the area and are in an estate which is not popular with Service families.

  The Ministry of Defence will hand the surplus properties back to their owner, Annington Homes Limited (AHL) in accordance with the sales agreement of November 1996, when AHL purchased most of the Service family housing in England and Wales. AHL will decide whether to retain or sell them, and the MOD has no influence over this decision. The local authority may wish to negotiate with AHL over the lease or purchase of the properties.

  Congo
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British troops will be deployed to the Democratic Republic of Congo as part of a United Nations peacekeeping force. [116959]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 9 June 2003]: The United Kingdom currently contributes six UK military personnel to the UN peacekeeping mission (MONUC) that has been operating in the DRC since 13 November 1999.

  In addition, as I announced in the House on 12 June 2003, Official Report, column 849), the UK has offered a small contribution to the EU-led multinational force being deployed to Bunia in the Democratic Republic of Congo. We have offered five staff officers for the Force Headquarters in theatre, a liaison officer to work with the UN, some Hercules transport aircraft to help deploy the force and a small detachment of engineers. The precise number of personnel will not be known until we have completed a detailed analysis of the engineer tasks to be undertaken in Bunia. This is not a UN force but is EU-led as a European Security and Defence Policy operation.

  Defence Estate (West Sussex)
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the extent is of the defence estate in West Sussex. [119660]

  Mr. Caplin
  The extent of the defence estate in West Sussex is currently 678.5 hectares. This can be broken down as follows:

  Occupied by

  Site

  Hectares

  Army

  Roussillion barracks, Chichester

  11

  Army

  Baker barracks, Thorney Island

  667

  Meteorological office

  Pease Pottage, near Crawley

  0.03

  Meteorological office

  Birchfield house, 'field road, Charlwood

  0.02

  Reserve Forces

  Little High street, Worthing

  0.06

  Reserve Forces

  Kilnmead, Crawley

  0.37

  Properties occupied by the Army Cadet Force and Air Training Corps have not been included.

  Environmental Monitoring (Dundrennan)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on recent environmental monitoring results at Dundrennan. [119342]

  Mr. Caplin
  On 24 February 2003, we published our report on the use of new and more sensitive monitoring equipment to search for any previously undetected depleted uranium fragments around the gun positions and along the firing lines. The results of this survey confirm the findings of the routine environmental monitoring programme and the adequacy of the existing safety precautions. A copy of this report has been sent to the local council.

  Executive Agencies
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the Defence Export Services Organisation; how many are employed in Scotland; what the personnel costs of the agency are; and how these figures compare to 2002. [119276]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Defence Export Services Organisation (DESO) employed 615 service and civilian personnel at the end of April 2003, compared with 595 a year previously. Three DESO personnel, employed through the Disposal Services Agency, were employed in Scotland at each of these points.

  The personnel costs of the organisation for the relevant years, part of which are met from receipts, are as follows:

  Personnel cost

  Financial year

  £million

  2001–02

  26.8

  2002–03

  28.8

  Note:

  Figures for numbers employed are full-time equivalents. Personnel numbers and costs include Disposal Services Agency staff.
  248W
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the Ministry of Defence police; how many are employed in Scotland; what the personnel costs of the agency are; and how these figures compare to 2002. [119277]

  Mr. Caplin
  As at 1 June 2003, 3,267 police officers and 320 civilian staff were employed by the Ministry of Defence Police Agency, as compared to 3,322 police officers and 278 civilian staff on 1 June 2002. As at 1 June 2003, 776 police officers and 38 civilian staff were employed in Scotland, as compared to 801 police officers and 38 civilian staff on 1 June 2002. The personnel costs of the MDP agency for financial year 2001–02 were £153 million. The chief constable's accounts for financial year 2002–03 are currently being audited by the National Audit Office.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the Defence Aviation Repair Agency; how many are employed in Scotland; what the personnel costs of the agency are; and how these figures compare to 2002. [119278]

  Mr. Caplin
  As at 1 April 2003 there were 4,060 people working for the Defence Aviation Repair Agency (DARA) of which 306 employees were employed in Scotland. The annual personnel costs of the agency as at 1 January 2003 were £110 million. For the comparable 12 month period as at 1 April 2002 there were 4,343 DARA employees of which 317 were employed in Scotland. The comparable annual personnel costs of the agency as at 1 January 2002 were £120 million.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the British Forces Post Office; how many are employed in Scotland; what the personnel costs of the agency are; and how these figures compare to 2002. [119279]

  Mr. Caplin
  The British Forces Post Office (BFPO) agency employed a total of 554 (557 in the previous year) staff (full-time equivalent) as at 31 March 2003.

  In Scotland the BFPO agency currently employs nine full-time staff (this figure is unchanged from 2002). Eight staff are employed at its Defence Mail Centre in Glasgow, plus one driver who works for our Defence Courier Service.

  The personnel costs for BFPO for the respective reporting years ended 31 March were:

  £million

  2001–02

  12.009

  2002–03

  13.461

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency; how many are employed in Scotland; what the personnel costs of the agency are; and how these figures compare to 2002. [119280]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency was disestablished in October 2000. Part of the organisation was restructured and became the Defence Clothing Integrated Project Team (IPT) in April 2001.
  249W
  As at April 2003 there were 233 people working for the IPT. There are no staff employed in Scotland. The annual personnel costs of the IPT for financial year 2003–04 are estimated to be approximately £6.3 million. For the comparable 12-month period as at April 2002 there were 268 IPT employees, again with no employees in Scotland. The comparable annual personnel costs of the IPT for financial year 2002–03 were approximately £5.9 million.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the Defence Engineering and Science Group; how many are employed in Scotland; what the personnel costs of the agency are; and how these figures compare to 2002. [119282]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Defence Engineering and Science Group is not an agency. It is a classification for a group of professional civil servants employed across a wide range of agencies and organisations in the Ministry of Defence.

  Since last year we have changed the method of recording information on our civilian employees and the figures also now exclude Trading Fund Agencies. The baseline figures for 2002 therefore now comprise 8,585 engineers and scientists, of whom 899 were employed in Scotland. The figures for 2003 are 8,314 and 677 respectively.

  The personnel costs for these engineers and scientists cannot be uniquely or separately identified and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the Army Base Repair Organisation; how many are employed in Scotland; what the personnel costs of the agency are; and how these figures compare to 2002. [119283]

  Mr. Caplin
  ABRO (formerly known as the Army Base Repair Organisation), employed 2,600 staff, as at 1 June 2003. Of the total ABRO staff, 147 individuals are employed at Stirling, ABRO's sole workshop facility in Scotland.

  The forecast pay cost of ABRO staff for the current financial year of 2003–04 is £63.8 million. This figure includes £3 million for Stirling.

  In the financial year 2002–03 ABRO employed an average of 2,545 staff, of whom 145 worked in Stirling. The total pay cost for ABRO in 2002–03 was £63.9 million, which included £2.99 million spent by Stirling.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many people work for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency; how many are employed in Scotland; what the personnel costs of the agency are; and how these figures compare to 2002; [119290]

  (2) how many people work for the Defence Scientific and Technical Laboratory; how many are employed in Scotland; what the personnel costs of the agency are; and how these figures compare to 2002. [119281]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency was disestablished on 1 July 2001, when two new organisations, QinetiQ and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl), were created.250W
  QinetiQ is a plc, and all operational inquiries should be addressed to the Chief Executive. Dstl remains a part of the Ministry of Defence.

  On 1 June 2003, the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) employed 3,145 staff (compared to 3,037 in January 2002). Of these, 46 (compared with 54 in January 2002) were employed in Scotland. Dstl's paybill (which includes total pay, casual allowances, ERNIC and pension costs) averaged £9.03 million per month (compared with £8.56 million in January 2002) over the year to 31 March 2003.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place copies of the Naval Manning Agency's annual reports for 2000–01 and 2001–02 in the Library. [119627]

  Mr. Caplin
  Copies of the Naval Manning Agency's annual reports are routinely placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The 2001–02 report was available in the Library of the House on 10 October 2002.

  Gulf Deployment
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) plans and (b) provision his Department has made for transporting troops no longer involved in active operational duties in the Gulf back to the UK; what the timetable is for returning troops home; and if he will make a statement. [110542]

  Mr. Ingram
  United Kingdom Military Campaign Objectives contain a commitment to withdraw British Military Forces from Iraq as soon as practicable. Regular announcements on 11 April 2003,Official Report, columns 38–39WS, 30 Apri12003, Official Report, columns 15–16WS and 11 June 2003, Official Report, columns 52–53WS, have been made outlining in some detail the plans and arrangements for moving UK forces to and from the Middle East, and these will continue.

  The planning process is dynamic and we will continue to review our force levels to ensure that we maintain an appropriate military presence for as long as is necessary.

  Infantry Regiments
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to reduce the number of infantry regiments. [119619]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are no plans to reduce the number of infantry regiments.

  Iraq Survey Group
  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent the costs of the Iraqi survey group will be met by(a) coalition forces and (b) the proposed Iraqi assistance fund. [114561]

  Mr. Hoon
  On current plans, costs in respect of units and personnel contributed to the Iraq Survey Group will be met by the contributing nations. Costs in respect of the continued disarmament of Iraq, for example decontamination of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) sites or long-term storage of WMD materials, may be met from the Development Fund for Iraq,
  251W
  consistent with the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people and as set out; in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483 (2003).

  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps the Government will take to verify the origin of material linked to weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq. [111113]

  Mr. Hoon
  Coalition forces in Iraq have dedicated resources to conducting investigations into sites, personnel, documentation and other forms of evidence that may be connected to programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The objective of these investigations will be to account for Iraqi WMD and related facilities and ensure that these are no longer a threat. Where possible and practicable, we will also aim to identify the origin of any materials linked to Iraqi WMD programmes where these materials may have been supplied in breach of sanctions imposed by the United Nations or other international agreements.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many alleged sites of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq identified by the Government are fully secured by coalition forces; and how many have yet to be(a) secured and (b) inspected. [113011]

  Mr. Hoon
  As at 7 June 2003, Coalition forces had initiated investigations into 140 sites within Iraq, from a list of over 500, which may be connected to programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction. Additionally, investigations had been initiated into a further 74 sites identified since the conflict began. We anticipate that further sites will be identified as investigations progress. Where these sites are thought to contain materials which may relate to weapons of mass destruction programmes, or otherwise contain hazardous substances, Coalition forces are taking action to secure them.

  Unexploded Ordnance
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department is working with NGOs in Iraq to educate the public about the dangers of unexploded ordnance. [117037]

  Mr. Ingram
  Providing a safe, secure and risk free environment for the Iraqi people is a key aspect of restoration activity for the Coalition. The United Kingdom itself has made a significant effort to educate the local population in its area of operations about the dangers of mines and unexploded ordnance. A Theatre Mine Risk Education Programme has been developed with the support of UNICEF and the ICRC. A poster and leaflet campaign has been carried out, head teachers in Basrah have been briefed and military teams are delivering mine and unexploded ordnance awareness training to Primary and Secondary schools on a daily basis using material approved by the ICRC. In addition to this local radio stations are informing the local population about unexploded ordnance and encouraging them not to tamper with anything that has either been marked as or may look like unexploded ordnance.
  252W

  Medical Distribution Network
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the British army is doing to restore the medical distribution network in Iraq. [117057]

  Mr. Caplin
  United Kingdom forces are working with the local health authority and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) to re-stock the central Basrah warehouse, from which drugs and pharmaceuticals were supplied before the war. They have also provided security for the warehouse and for deliveries to local medical facilities. These medical facilities have been visited on a regular basis. UK forces are also working with the World Health Organisation (WHO) and NGOs to correct any deficiencies there might be in drugs for chronic illnesses. Along with the WHO, we are monitoring humanitarian donations ensuring that they are appropriate and properly used. The Office of the Provisional Coalition Authority in Baghdad intends to reintroduce routine re-supply in the near future.

  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the bunker-buster missiles used in Iraq were tipped with depleted uranium. [118323]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is no air-launched ordnance containing depleted uranium in United Kingdom service.

  Operation TELIC
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) reservists and (b) regulars on Operation TELIC have been medically downgraded, broken down by service; what percentage of the force deployed by each service these figures represent; and if he will make a statement. [119010]

  Mr. Caplin
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in response to how many parliamentary written questions during the 2002–03 session he has decided to withhold information under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information; and what percentage of written questions asked this constitutes. [119104]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 13 June 2003]: During the current session 3,160 parliamentary written questions have been tabled to the Ministry of Defence. From the information available on our database, information was withheld in 142 questions under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. This is equivalent to 4 per cent. In some instances a Code exemption will have been cited to withhold only part of the information requested.

  The hon. Member will be aware that the Select Committee on Public Administration publish this information in their report 'Ministerial Accountability and Parliamentary Questions'. Their last report was published on 13 December 2000 for Session 2000–01.
  253W

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH

  Liberia
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what action he has taken to support the extradition of President Taylor of Liberia; [119365]

  (2) what steps the Department is taking to help bring peace to Liberia; [119361]

  (3) if he will make a statement on (a) the UN indictment of Charles Taylor for war crimes and (b) his Department's work to reduce conflict in Liberia; [119362]

  (4) if he will make a statement on the impact of UN sanctions against Liberia. [119364]

  Mr. Mullin
  On 4 June 2003 the Special Court for Sierra Leone unsealed an indictment for President Charles Taylor of Liberia for bearing the greatest responsibility for war crimes, crimes against humanity and other serious violations of international humanitarian law in Sierra Leone since 1996. The UK has called on President Taylor to hand himself over to the Special Court. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1470 calls on all countries to cooperate with the Special Court.

  The UK has been instrumental in containing Taylor's Liberia through UN sanctions aimed at stopping the funding of arms purchases, a travel ban on those who breach the arms embargo and a ban on timber exports which takes effect on 7 July. We are working through the International Contact Group on Liberia, the UN and the EU to encourage all sides to participate actively in peace negotiations taking place in Akasombo, Ghana. Our aim is an immediate cease-fire and a comprehensive negotiated political settlement.

  Sierra Leone
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the lifting of sanctions on conflict diamonds in Sierra Leone. [119367]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer the hon. Member to the Written Ministerial Statement that I made today.

  Burma
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made to the Burmese Government on their recent arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi. [119262]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK has made numerous representations to the Burmese Authorities. The British Embassy in Rangoon has repeatedly sought access to National League for Democracy (NLD) leaders Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and U Tin Oo. On 2 June we called in the Burmese Ambassador to the UK to express the British Government's deep concern over recent events in Burma and again spoke to him on 3 June. On 6 June I spoke to the Burmese Deputy Foreign Minister to reiterate our concern and to call for substantive and meaningful dialogue with the democratic movement. On 9 June the EU d"marched the Burmese Government 254W
  calling for the immediate release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her party officials and for the reopening of universities and NLD offices. With our EU partners we are considering what further steps we will take if the regime does not provide immediate satisfactory responses.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Burmese authorities about the detention of Aung San Suu Kyi; and if he will make a statement. [119477]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend, the Member for Tamworth (Brian Jenkins) today (UIN 119262).

  Congo
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the prospects for peace in the Democratic Republic of Congo, with particular reference to Ituri province. [119059]

  Mr. Mullin
  I refer the hon. Member to the Statement given to the House on 12 June 2003,Official Report, column 849, by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Ingram).

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the Government has had with the(a) Rwandan and (b) Ugandan Governments regarding the supply of arms to the Lendu and Hema tribes in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [119060]

  Mr. Mullin
  We are in regular contact with the Governments of Rwanda and Uganda and continue to call on them, and the Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), to stop all support to armed groups in Ituri. UNSCR 1484 of 30 May demanded "the cessation of all support, in particular weapons and any other military materiel, to the armed groups and militias" and that "all Congolese parties and all states in the region actively prevent the supply of such support".

  The UK continues to uphold the EU arms embargo (imposed 7 April 1993), which bans the export of military equipment from the EU to the DRC, and to examine all export licence applications against our national criteria and the EU Code of Conduct.

  Aid to Women
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 May 2003,Official Report, column 567W, on democratisation, what proportion of the (a) Global Conflict Prevention Pool, (b) Human Rights Project Fund, (c) the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, (d) British Council, (e) Africa Conflict Prevention Pool and (f) Global Opportunities Fund monies provide assistance directly to women. [118056]

  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer 10 June 2003]: Assistance to women is not accounted for as a distinct FCO budget line. Separately identifying all the activities within these programmes that directly provide assistance to women could be undertaken only at

  255W
  disproportionate cost. However, we can identify activities which by their nature are likely to provide some assistance to women:

  (a) The Global Conflict Prevention Pool supports a number of initiatives that bring a gender perspective into its conflict prevention activities. For instance, under the Indonesia/East Timor Strategy, the Global Pool is helping UNIFEM's Women, Peace and Security Programme gather information on women's peacebuilding and gender justice initiatives, and is helping the Department for Peacekeeping Operations implement its new guidelines on mainstreaming gender in peace operations. Given that 90 per cent. of those killed, wounded, abused or displaced in conflict are women or children, focusing people's attention on women in conflict is a natural corollary of Conflict Prevention Pool activity;

  (b) The Human Rights Project Fund has allocated £624,050 (9 per cent.) of this year's £7.1 million budget to womens' rights projects;

  (c) The Westminster Foundation for Democracy has committed £440,000 (19 per cent.) out of £2.32 million allocated so far this year to projects directly supporting women;

  (d) Much of British Council activity is geared towards young people, men and women, but of its work on governance £1.1 million (9 per cent.) out of £12.1 million specifically relates to women's projects;

  (e) The Africa Conflict Prevention Pool promotes peace and security in Africa as a necessary condition of development. Peace, security and development benefit men, women and children alike. There is growing evidence that the most vulnerable groups in society, including women, children and the aged are among the principal victims of modern African conflicts. Efforts to reduce conflict are therefore potentially of greater benefit to these groups; and

  (f) The Global Opportunities Fund has just been launched and will be used to reinforce work in five main thematic areas, including human rights and good governance. Funding will be channelled first to programmes and then, through these, to projects. Five programmes are being launched this financial year. We are not yet able to confirm how funds will be allocated, but we are committed to working with women in all areas, particularly through the programmes on Engagement with the Islamic World, Good Governance in EU Applicant Countries and Near Neighbours, and Strengthening our Relations with Emerging Markets.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what mechanism has been established to monitor and report on the use of Hawk fighter jets in Indonesia. [119064]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I visited Indonesia on 3–4 June, and raised the issue of the use of Hawk aircraft with senior Members of the Indonesian Government, including President Megawati. I warned the Indonesian Government of the possible consequences for defence sales and our defence relationship if Hawk aircraft are used to violate human rights.
  256W
  Our embassy in Jakarta receives information from inter alia, NGOs, other foreign observers and the media as well as from the Government.

  Iraq
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken to ensure that the international community has been given the opportunity to participate in the rebuilding work agreed by Coalition forces; and what form this participation and partnership has taken. [1189751]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  UN Security Council Resolution 1483 gives a clear framework for international participation in the rebuilding of Iraq. Many countries are already contributing to the rebuilding process through a presence in the Coalition Provisional Authority [CPA], co-ordinated in Baghdad by the International Co-ordination Council, chaired by Polish ex-Deputy Prime Minister, Marek Belka. The UN is to hold a conference on 23 June 2003 to instigate an updated UN Flash appeal, to be followed by a conference on 24 June 2003 for countries planning to contribute to reconstruction in Iraq. The European Commission's Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) is now operating in Iraq and we are encouraging the European Commission and our EU partners to maximise their contributions to reconstruction.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken(a) to prevent indiscriminate attacks, revenge attacks, hostage taking and collective punishment being perpetrated by Iraqi civilians and (b) to ensure that the police and security services in Iraq do not perpetrate similar acts. [1189761]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Coalition is committed to maintaining law and order. Coalition forces are currently conducting 2,000 patrols per day, of which 200 are joint patrols with the Iraqi police. UK police experts on law enforcement and the criminal justice system are advising on the stabilisation of the security situation and rebuilding the Iraqi police.

  The Royal Military Police investigates complaints made against the Iraqi police by Iraqi civilians. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave her today [UIN 118979].

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken to restore and maintain public order and safety in Iraq since the ending of military action. [118978]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Restoring public order is a top priority for the Coalition. Reporting from Baghdad indicates that progress is being made, with a significant decline in armed criminality. 2,000 Coalition patrols are conducted each day, of which 200 are joint patrols with the Iraqi police.

  Over 2,000 Iraqi police have returned to work in the UK-divisional area in Southern Iraq and 9,000 in Baghdad. I am told that 18 Iraqi police stations in Baghdad are now operating 24 hours a day with 23 more scheduled to reopen by 30 June 2003. UK police experts on law enforcement and the criminal justice system are

  257W
  advising on the stabilisation of the security situation and rebuilding the police service. UK forces have been conducting joint patrols with the Iraqi police since 13 April 2003 in Basra.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken to ensure that Iraqis serving in the police and security services are subject to a vetting process to ensure no individuals suspected of or known to have perpetrated human rights violations are given positions of influence. [118979]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  UK field security teams conducted background checks on re-registered police in the UK area. The Coalition has published an order which bars senior members of the Ba'ath Party from future positions of authority including in the police and security services. Those suspected of criminal conduct are investigated and detained if necessary.

  HOME OFFICE

    Alcohol (Public Places)
    Mr. Steinberg
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which local authorities have made use of orders banning consumption of alcohol in public places; and what percentage of local authorities this represents. [119095]

    Caroline Flint
    Seventy-four local authorities have so far notified the Home Office that they have made designation orders under section 13 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 to restrict anti-social public drinking in areas that have experienced alcohol-related disorder or nuisance. These are listed in the table. This represents around 18 per cent. of the total number of local authorities (county, metropolitan, unitary, borough and district councils) in England and Wales. The new arrangements introduced by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 replaced the previous Home Office public drinking byelaw. Any such byelaw will lapse after five years from the commencement of the relevant provisions on 1 September 2001, unless replaced by a section 13 designation order.

    We have included a proposal in the Licensing Bill, currently before Parliament, that will increase police powers to confiscate alcohol in sealed alcohol containers, in addition to opened containers, from people who are drinking and causing a nuisance in designated public areas.

    Local Authorities: designation orders under section 13 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001

    Brighton & Hove City Council

    Bristol City Council

    Breckland Council

    Bromley Borough Council

    Burnley Borough Council

    Chelmsford District Council

    Cherwell District Council

    Crewe and Nantwich Borough Council

    Dacorum Borough Council

    Daventry District Council

    Denbighshire County Council

    Derby City Council

    258W

    Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council

    Eastbourne Borough Council

    Eastleigh Borough Council

    East Riding Borough Council

    East Staffordshire Borough Council

    Enfield Borough Council

    Great Yarmouth Borough Council

    Haringey Borough Council

    Harrogate Borough Council

    Herefordshire District Council

    Hyndburn Borough Council

    Kingston upon Hull City Council

    Leicester City Council

    Mendip District Council

    Macclesfield Borough Council

    Manchester City Council

    Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council

    Middlesbrough Council

    Milton Keynes Council

    Newcastle City Council

    Northampton Borough Council

    North Cornwall District Council

    North Devon District Council

    North East Lincolnshire Council

    North Norfolk District Council

    North Somerset Council

    North West Leicestershire District Council

    Oadby and Wigston Borough Council

    Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council

    Oxford City Council

    Preston City Council

    Reading Borough Council

    Redditch Borough Council

    Ribble Valley Borough Council

    Royal Kingston Borough Council

    Salisbury District Council

    Sefton Council

    Shepway District Council

    Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council

    South Bedfordshire District Council

    Southend-on-Sea Borough Council

    South Somerset District Council

    South Staffordshire Council

    Stafford Borough Council

    Stratford on Avon District Council

    Stroud District Council

    Sutton Borough Council

    Swindon Borough Council

    Taunton Deane Borough Council

    Thanet District Council

    Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council

    Warrington Borough Council

    Watford Council

    Westminster (City of)

    Weymouth & Portland Borough Council

    Wigan Council

    Windsor & Maidenhead

    Wolverhampton City Council

    Worthing Borough

    Wrexham County Borough

    Wycombe District Council

    York City Council

    Antisocial Behaviour
    Mr. Jenkins
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to curb under-age drinking as part of his strategy to tackle anti-social behaviour. [118684]

    Ms Blears
    Underage drinking is one of the forms of behaviour that can be tackled by the use of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) and Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs), as was confirmed in the guidance "A Guide to Anti-Social Behaviour Orders and Acceptable Behaviour Contracts" issued on 12 November 2002. In addition, the White Paper "Rights and Responsibility—Taking a Stand Against Anti-Social Behaviour" made clear the Government's intention to introduce, in the Criminal Justice Bill, a new Individual Support Order that will extend the protection that ASBOs provide to the community by requiring children and young people subject to such orders to undertake individually tailored activities, which could include attending treatment for substance misuse.

    The Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, currently before Parliament, contains measures to extend the penalty notice for disorder scheme, initially to 16 and 17-yearolds, with an option to extend it to cover all juveniles over 10. This will make it possible for juveniles involved

    Proportion of persons proceeded against at magistrates courts or cautioned for offences of arson1 who were aged 10 to 17 England and Wales 2000 and 2001

    Proceeded against

    Cautioned

    Year

    all ages

    Age 10–17

    % of all ages who were age 10–17

    All ages

    Age 10–172

    % of all ages who were age 10–17

    20003

    2,375

    1,005

    42

    1,034

    936

    91

    2001

    2,475

    1,134

    46

    1,144

    1,022

    89

    1 These data are on the principal offence basis.

    2 From 1 June 2000 the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 came into force nationally and removed the use of cautions for persons under 18 and replaced them with reprimands and final warnings.

    3 Staffordshire police were only able to supply a sample of data for magistrates courts proceedings covering one full week in each quarter for 2000. Estimates based on this sample are included in the figures, as they are considered sufficiently robust at this high level of analysis.

    Children (Online Safety)
    Margaret Moran
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he intends to take to ensure mobile phone companies provide advice and guidance(a) to parents on how to safeguard children from access to inappropriate content and sites and (b) directly to children about online safety in general, and in particular the dangers of giving personal information to strangers in chat rooms or via the internet. [118855]

    Ms Blears
    We are in discussion with providers of mobile phone services through my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's Task Force on Child Protection on the Internet, which they have joined. A sub-group of the task force is considering with them how the models of good practice which we issued earlier this year for the fixed internet are applicable to the mobile industry. The models include advice in both these areas. I am confident that the mobile phone companies have taken notice of these issues, and I understand they will be issuing a code of practice for consultation shortly which will include proposals in these areas.260W
    in the type of minor, often drink-related, offending covered by the scheme to be issued with fixed penalty notices.

    The Licensing Bill now before Parliament will, if enacted, amend existing legislation to allow the police to confiscate all alcohol, whether in sealed or opened containers, from young people who are drinking in public places.

    The Home Office is also working with the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit on their project to develop a cross-governmental alcohol harm reduction strategy for England. The project is paying particular attention to issues such as alcohol-related crime and anti-social behaviour as well as the health impacts of alcohol misuse. The strategy is planned for publication in autumn 2003.

    Arson
    Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of those people(a) prosecuted and (b) cautioned for arson offences in (i) 2000, (ii) 2001 and (iii) 2002 were between the ages of 10 and 17. [117895]

    Ms Blears
    The information requested is contained in the table.

    Statistics for 2002 will be published in the autumn.

    Earlier this year, the task force ran a campaign to raise parents' and children's awareness of the risks of giving out their personal details to strangers and provide Advice on using chat rooms. The evaluation of this campaign showed improved awareness of the core messages.

    Consultation Exercises
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many consultation exercises his Department has held with a closing date of less than 90 days from the announcement date in the last 12 months. [117114]

    Mr. Blunkett
    I would refer the hon Member to the answer I gave to the hon Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) on 6 May 2003,Official Report, column 596W.

    Emergency Vehicles (Traffic Violations)
    Mr. Steinberg
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many traffic violations were
    261W
    committed by police vehicles answering emergency calls; and how many prosecutions arose for them in the last five years. [119094]

    Ms Blears
    Information is not collected centrally on the number of police vehicles involved in traffic violations.

    Energy Efficiency
    Mr. Roger Williams
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what targets his Department has for improving energy efficiency; and how he intends to achieve these targets. [116656]

    Fiona Mactaggart
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett) on 9 June 2003,Official Report, column 581W.

    Entitlement/Identity Cards
    Mr. Bailey
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the analysis from the consultation on entitlement and identity cards will be complete. [119357]

    Beverley Hughes
    It is hoped that we will have completed our analysis of responses before the summer recess.

    EU Constitution
    Bob Spink
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on those sections of the draft EU constitution relating to(a) tackling terrorism and (b) external order controls. [118739]

    Mr. Blunkett
    The existing Treaty on the European Union includes preventing and combating terrorism as a Union objective and already provides for extensive police and judicial co-operation. This has been strengthened by the action agreed at the Tampere European Council in October 1999. This co-operation is in Britain's national interest as we face the threat of terrorism and has already proved its worth, for example by ensuring that all member states have effective legislation on combating terrorism.

    The effect of the new draft treaty is to draw together all the elements in the fight against terrorism in a single merged treaty. I believe it will provide a strong framework for effective EU action against terrorism in the future.

    Provisions on external border controls are also already provided for in the Treaty establishing the European Community. They are the basis of firm collective action by member states to tackle illegal immigration. Those provisions have been amended and incorporated into the new draft Constitutional Treaty. I believe they will provide the framework we need to establish strong and effective external border controls across an enlarged EU.

    Nevertheless, the United Kingdom does not intend to give up its right under the Treaties to exercise at its frontiers with other member states such controls on persons seeking to enter the United Kingdom as it
    262W
    considers necessary. As a consequence of this position on frontiers, the United Kingdom has not participated in certain measures relating to external borders. But, within this constraint, we will continue to seek to co-operate with EU colleagues to the maximum extent possible, without prejudice to the maintenance of our national immigration controls.

    For further information about the Government's position on the articles in the draft Constitutional Treaty dealing with the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, as presented to the Convention by the Praesidium on 14 March, I refer the hon. Member to the Explanatory Memorandum deposited by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Jack Straw) on 2 June.

    Justice and Home Affairs Council
    Mr. Hood
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the outcome was of the Justice and Home Affairs Council held on 5 to 6 June; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [118416]

    Caroline Flint
    The United Kingdom was represented at the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council in Luxembourg on 5–6 June by my noble Friend (Lord Filkin) and my noble Friend (the Baroness Scotland). The A points were approved as in document PTS A 32 and ADD 1 (9941/03) (a copy has been placed in the Library) with the exception of item 21.

    The Council concluded a political agreement on the Council Directive concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents.

    One member state retained scrutiny reservations on the Directive on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third-country nationals and stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection. The Presidency remitted the Directive to COREPER with a view to securing agreement at the Thessaloniki European Council in order to meet the deadline set at the Seville Council. Member states lifted the majority of their reservations on the first two Chapters of the amended proposal for a Council Directive on minimum standards on procedures in member states for granting and withdrawing refugee status. Five member states, including the United Kingdom, also presented a joint declaration calling for a minimum common EU list of safe countries of origin to be included in the text.

    The Commission presented its Communications on illegal immigration, asylum systems and integration and employment. Lord Filkin welcomed the Communications noting that there was a need to address the crisis in Europe and across the world in the international protection system. Lord Filkin also said that the Council should consider the priorities for the Thessaloniki European Council. In particular, there was a need to integrate asylum and migration issues into the EU's relations with third countries; set targets for the conclusion of readmission agreements; and give a commitment to burden sharing. He also called for a European Returns Fund; extra Community funding for JHA activity post-2006; and agreement to take forward

    263W
    pilot projects to test out new approaches to international protection with interested member states and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR).

    The Council subsequently agreed conclusions on the effective management of the EU's external borders. A discussion on conclusions on a common policy on illegal immigration, external borders, the return of illegal immigrants and co-operation with third countries focussed on the need for a financial mechanism to assist Community return policy, which the United Kingdom supported.

    The Council agreed conclusions on the functions of SIS and the SIS II architecture and the Council Decision concerning the signature of Agreements between EU-US on extradition and mutual legal assistance. On the latter, the majority of member states, including the United Kingdom, entered declarations under Article 24(5) TEU to the effect that they would not be bound by the Agreements until they had met constitutional, or in the case of the United Kingdom, legislative requirements.

    The Council resolved the outstanding issues of principle on the Regulation concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility on the basis of a Presidency compromise package. The Regulation was remitted to experts to address the final technical questions.

    The Council held an orientation debate on the Regulation creating a European enforcement order for uncontested civil claims during which Ministers discussed the scope of the Regulation, minimum standards for the service of claims, appeal provisions and the omission of a public policy based right to refuse enforcement. Baroness Scotland welcomed the proposed Regulation, emphasising the benefits that better debt recovery would bring to businesses trading cross-Europe. She supported the Presidency's proposals, in particular the inclusion within the minimum standards of postal service where that method was permitted in the State in which both parties resided and where the possibility of setting aside the judgment continued until enforcement commenced. The issue of whether to exclude consumer debts from the scope of the Regulation and the matter of claims which attracted state immunity protection were remitted to the working group.

    Member states indicated that they could accept the proposal that confiscation orders be enforced in the absence of dual criminality for a list of offences specified in Article 5 of the Framework Decision on the execution in the EU of Confiscation Orders. However, member states linked the enforcement of extended confiscation orders as defined in Article 2 to grounds for refusal set out in Article 7.

    The Presidency presented a progress report on the Framework Decision on the application of the principle of "ne bis in idem" and on negotiations with Switzerland to participate in the Schengen Aquis and asylum matters. The Commission gave a detailed summary of the latest version of the JHA Scoreboard noting in particular that some of the deadlines set at the Seville European Council were not going to be met.
    264W
    Under Any Other Business, the Presidency presented its ideas for the creation of common data protection rules for the Third Pillar.

    The Mixed Committee with Norway and Iceland met at Ministerial level in the margins of the Council. It approved conclusions endorsing the creation of the Visa Information System; conclusions on the functions of SIS and SIS II architecture; the Directive on assistance in transit for the purposes of removal by air; conclusions on the Schengen Evaluation of Spain; a report following up the Schengen evaluation of France; conclusions on increasing the efficiency of the Schengen evaluation mechanism; and the Regulation on the issuing of visas for members of the Olympic family for the 2004 Games. The Mixed Committee also took note of the Presidency's report on the implementation of programmes, ad hoc centres, pilot projects and joint operations for the effective management of the external border.

    Parole
    Mr. Lansley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what his policy is in respect of making representations to(a) the Prison Service and (b) the Commissioner for Correction, concerning the exercise by the Parole Board of its judgements on parole; [117583]

    (2) on how many occasions since June 2001 he has made representations to the (a) Prisons Service and (b) Parole Board concerning the exercise of the Parole Board's judgment on parole decisions. [117587]

    Paul Goggins
    [holding answer 9 June 2003]: Information is served on the Parole Board on behalf of the Secretary of State in every case which is referred to the Parole Board to consider an application for early release. All such information is served to the prisoner, save in special circumstances described below.

    The Secretary of State has made no undisclosed representations to the Parole Board in respect of any individual case. Such action would undermine the transparency and fairness of the parole and early release process, as well as the independence of the Parole Board, which he considers an essential contribution to public confidence in the criminal justice system.

    Under the Parole Board Rules 1997 (which apply to oral hearings of the Board) the parties to a parole hearing are the prisoner and the Secretary of State. Paragraph 5 of the Rules requires the Secretary of State to serve on the Board and on the prisoner, information relating to the prisoner, reports relating to the prisoner and such further information which he considers to be relevant to the case. This material takes the form of a dossier of reports from prison and probation staff, prison psychologists where appropriate, court and police reports at the time of the trial, and any other relevant information, including an assessment of risk which the prison may pose if released. Where the Parole Board decides that an oral hearing should take place, both parties are entitled to be represented at the hearing and to hear each other's evidence.

    The same principles apply to paper reviews by the Board, and the information which is required to be put before the Board on behalf of the Secretary of State in these cases is set out in Prison Service Order 6000, a copy

    265W
    of which is in the Library. All material must be disclosed to the prisoner unless for reasons set out in the Order—which include risks to the health and welfare of others—disclosure is withheld.

    From time to time my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary discusses the operation of the parole and early release system with officials. The Home Secretary has made no representations to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the exercise by the Parole Board of its judgments on parole.

    Passports
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his Answer of 11 June 2003,Official Report, column 948W, on duplicate passports, how many current passports have been issued as second passports. [119952]

    Beverley Hughes
    [holding answer 17 June 2003]: The UK Passport Service (UKPS) does not routinely collate centrally figures relating to the issue of second passports. The information could therefore be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Police Authority Attendance Allowance
    Bob Russell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was paid in attendance allowances to members of police authorities in England and Wales in each of the last 10 municipal years; and how much he estimates will be allocated in the current municipal year. [118744]

    Ms Blears
    The Police Act 1996 provided for the reimbursement of expenses and allowances by police authorities to their members from within their own budget (schedule 2, paragraph 25 and schedule 2A, paragraph 20). Payment was subject to any framework determined by the Secretary of State and approved by the Treasury. This framework was deregulated by virtue of section 107 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2002 which amended Schedule 2 of the 1996 Act to allow police authorities to develop their own local expenses and allowances schemes. The Home Office has never made direct payment to police authorities to cover the costs of allowances payable to police authority members and neither is there any power to require police authorities to provide this data to the Home Office. Accordingly, there is no central record held by the Department of the total costs borne by authorities in respect of such expenses and the cost of collecting this information from individual authorities would be prohibitive.

    Prostitution
    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrests there have been on the grounds of prostitution in the last five years in(a) England and Wales, (b) the West Midlands and (c) Coventry. [119052]

    Ms Blears
    Information on the number of persons arrested for prostitution offences is not collected centrally within England and Wales.

    Information relating to Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
    266W
    Matters related to Scotland are for the Scottish Executive.

    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what strategy is in place to reduce the number of(a) young people and (b) women at risk of (i) sexual exploitation and (ii) prostitution in England and Wales; and what studies he has made of other EU states' strategies for the reduction of prostitution and the protection of (A) young people and (B) women from such exploitation. [119053]

    Beverley Hughes
    The Government are taking a range of measures to address the involvement of young people and adult women involved in prostitution.

    The Sexual Offences Bill, currently before Parliament, will strengthen the legal framework for tackling the commercial sexual exploitation of adults and children and trafficking for this purpose, both within the United Kingdom and internationally. The provisions covering children will protect them up to the age of 18 and cover buying sexual services from a child, recruitment, control in prostitution or pornography, causing, inciting, arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography. The maximum penalties will range from seven years to life imprisonment depending on the age of the child and the activity involved.

    The offences in the Bill will help fulfil the requirements of European Union Framework Decisions on Combating Trafficking of Human Beings and the Sexual Exploitation of Children and Child Pornography, which the United Kingdom were actively involved in negotiating.

    In May 2000, the Government published "Safeguarding Children Involved in Prostitution". This guidance is aimed at all agencies that come into contact with children involved in, or at risk of becoming involved in, prostitution. It sets out a multi-agency approach, based on local protocols. It is issued pursuant to the Government's child protection guidance "Working Together to Safeguard Children".

    In September 2001, the Government published the "National Plan for Safeguarding Children from Commercial Sexual Exploitation", in preparation for the Second World Congress on the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in Yokohama, Japan in December 2001. The plan forms an important part of the Government's drive to improve safeguards for children. It focuses on those children who are induced or coerced into unlawful sexual activities for the commercial advantage of others. It explains what the Government, the devolved administrations and partner agencies are doing and are planning to do, looking at both UK-based and international sexual exploitation of children.

    In addition, the Home Office recently funded 11 prostitution initiatives as part of the "What Works: Tackling Prostitution" scheme, funded by the Crime Reduction Programme. These projects seek to develop and inform us of successful strategies for dealing with and managing the nuisance caused by the activities of prostitutes, the behaviour of those involved in the exploitation of others and ways of supporting those involved in prostitution who wish to exit the trade. Reports will be available later this year.
    267W
    With respect to children at risk of being drawn into prostitution or other commercial sexual exploitation, an assessment of the child's individual needs will be undertaken in accordance with the "Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families (2000)". This assessment should be followed by consideration of how best to address the identified needs of the child and the development of a care plan.

    For individual children already in prostitution, assistance and support should be provided by local statutory services in response to identified needs, whether directly or through specialist agencies. Child victims of commercial sexual exploitation are likely to be in need of welfare services and, in many cases, protection under the Children Act 1989. Social services have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of these children following an assessment of their circumstances.

    Where there is a risk to the life of a child or a likelihood of serious harm, an agency with statutory child protection powers, such as the police or councils with social services responsibilities, should act quickly to secure the immediate safety of the child. In some cases, it may be necessary to ensure either that the child remains in, or is removed to, a safe place. Under s.20 of the Children Act 1989, a local authority may provide accommodation for any child within its area if it considers that this would safeguard or promote the child's welfare.

    The Government are extremely concerned about the Mafia-style criminality associated with the exploitation of girls and women, the links between prostitution and drug dependency, and the way in which prostitution can blight local communities. There is a great deal of work to be done to establish how best to break the links between the sex trade and organised crime, to help those who are exploited to leave prostitution, and to support local communities to develop effective neighbourhood regeneration schemes. This is a complex area. As announced in 'Protecting the Public', published in November 2002 [Cm 5668] we are examining the scope for a review of the issues surrounding prostitution and the exploitation, organised criminality and class A drug abuse associated with it.

    Sickness Absence
    Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the honourable Member for Buckingham, of 28 April,Official Report, column 219W, on sickness absence, at what level information about long-term sickness absence in his Department is held. [112145]

    Beverley Hughes
    There has been no central definition of long-term sickness absence. Individual managers have responsibility for managing and monitoring all levels of sickness absence. Information about staff who are absent because of long-term illness is held by individual units but 268W
    will also be passed on to pay. personnel and health and welfare services to ensure that appropriate action is taken.

    Special Constables
    Dr. Pugh
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police forces have seen a decline in the number of special constables employed in the last five years; and how many have seen a decline greater than 20 per cent. [117773]

    Ms Blears
    Figures on strength by police force area have moved to an annual cycle from March 2002 and will be available in the Library as previous publications. From March 1997 to March 2002 (latest figures available) all but one police force (Merseyside) in England and Wales have seen a decline in their numbers of special constables; and 38 have seen a decline greater than 20 per cent. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) figures (from records supplied by 37 forces) show that 569 specials left to join the regulars in the year ending 31 March 2002 and by 30 September 2002 (the latest date available) there were 131,548 police officers in England and Wales. There was also 58,909 civilian support staff in March 2002 (latest available). Both are record numbers.

    The Government are committed to reversing the decline in specials and we are working with stakeholders to increase the size and effectiveness of the special constabulary. In particular, we will be publishing 'Good Practice Guidance' on the new website, following on from the Specials "champions projects", ensuring that specials' contribution is properly valued and used to best effect. The new specials website, www.specialconstables.gov.uk, was launched in February to provide specials and their managers with up-to-date information on the special constabulary and access to legislation and Home Office circulars.

    We also held the first ever National Specials Weekend in February to raise the profile of specials and give recognition to the invaluable work they do. And we have freed up regulations to allow forces to trial payment schemes funded locally. We are also looking at how we can improve the engagement of employers with the special constabulary; and whether we can increase the opportunities for recognising the skills and experience specials acquire in forces within their wider workplace.

    Mr. Paice
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables there were in each police force in England and Wales in each year since 1997. [119374]

    Ms Blears
    Figures on strength by police force area have moved to an annual cycle from March 2002 and will be available in the Library, as previous publications. The number of serving special constables in each police force area from March 1997 to March 2002 (latest figures available) are set out in the table.
    269W

    March 1997

    March 1998

    March 1999

    March 2000

    March 2001

    March 2002

    Avon & Somerset

    759

    621

    547

    459

    400

    364

    Bedfordshire

    182

    186

    154

    151

    115

    118

    Cambridgeshire

    303

    320

    310

    274

    218

    207

    Cheshire

    475

    459

    407

    350

    290

    191

    Cleveland

    160

    164

    126

    128

    93

    85

    Cumbria

    189

    198

    204

    176

    156

    102

    Derbyshire

    428

    380

    317

    282

    275

    260

    Devon & Cornwall

    1,148

    1,024

    918

    870

    796

    689

    Dorset

    289

    315

    305

    298

    267

    253

    Durham

    184

    144

    159

    157

    146

    134

    Essex

    634

    638

    544

    483

    445

    381

    Gloucestershire

    297

    276

    233

    206

    183

    154

    Greater Manchester

    685

    598

    523

    457

    367

    338

    Hampshire

    621

    698

    760

    615

    454

    444

    Hertfordshire

    297

    306

    238

    216

    198

    206

    Humberside

    340

    324

    269

    246

    212

    207

    Kent

    589

    592

    526

    436

    392

    327

    Lancashire

    483

    489

    449

    382

    360

    363

    Leicestershire

    415

    406

    316

    247

    162

    143

    Lincolnshire

    271

    260

    216

    195

    166

    155

    City of London

    86

    76

    64

    56

    43

    36

    Merseyside

    401

    419

    458

    476

    541

    468

    Metropolitan police

    1,714

    1,282

    1,138

    758

    774

    680

    Norfolk

    402

    337

    336

    285

    259

    244

    Northamptonshire

    316

    288

    230

    199

    188

    177

    Northumbria

    533

    400

    342

    332

    300

    256

    North Yorkshire

    362

    358

    276

    217

    182

    185

    Nottinghamshire

    620

    558

    461

    411

    335

    341

    South Yorkshire

    308

    281

    246

    205

    188

    206

    Staffordshire

    685

    595

    468

    482

    402

    384

    Suffolk

    379

    397

    420

    391

    349

    308

    Surrey

    297

    235

    224

    175

    149

    187

    Sussex

    472

    442

    393

    352

    306

    306

    Thames Valley

    656

    609

    569

    472

    418

    356

    Warwickshire

    381

    345

    261

    260

    221

    209

    WestMercia

    582

    512

    515

    476

    399

    339

    West Midlands

    945

    889

    731

    680

    617

    598

    West Yorkshire

    690

    589

    559

    484

    415

    349

    Wiltshire

    154

    149

    184

    173

    152

    147

    DyfedPowys

    283

    254

    237

    202

    191

    157

    Gwent

    157

    119

    113

    119

    137

    142

    North Wales

    341

    358

    400

    247

    207

    125

    South Wales

    361

    366

    338

    267

    254

    277

    Total all forces

    19,874

    18,256

    16,484

    14,347

    12,722

    11,598

    Source:

    Figures provided by Research Development Statistics Directorate.

    We are working with stakeholders to increase the size and effectiveness of the special constabulary. In particular, we will be publishing 'Good Practice Guidance' on the new website, ensuring specials' contribution is properly valued and used to best effect. We also held the first ever National Specials Weekend in February to raise the profile of specials and the invaluable work they do. And we have freed up regulations to allow forces to trial payment schemes funded locally. We are looking al whether we can increase the opportunities for recognising the skills and experience specials acquire in forces within their wider workplace as well.

    Sustainable Development
    Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment is made(a) of the environmental impact and (b) against sustainable development criteria of bids made for (i) grants and (ii) contracts awarded by his Department; who makes such assessments; and whether these assessments are published. [118785]
    270W
    Fiona Mactaggart
    The Department does not carry out environmental impact assessments or assess against sustainable development criteria when evaluating bids for grants or awarding contracts.

    However, the Department does take environmental purchasing seriously. Environmental issues are considered when awarding contracts where it is considered relevant to the contract and where it has been included in the contract specification. Such assessments are undertaken by a tender evaluation board, which where appropriate would be augmented by an environmental specialist who has the appropriate skills to perform the environmental assessment. These assessments are not published.

    Tasers
    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the health implications arising from the use by police forces of tasers; and if he will make a statement. [119081]
    271W
    Ms Blears
    The Defence Scientific Advisory Council (DSAC) Sub Committee on the Medical Implications of Less Lethal Weapons (DOMILL) has issued a statement on the medical implications of the use of taser. It concludes that the risk of death from high power tasers (such as the M26) is low, and certainly very much lower than that from conventional firearms. The full statement was included in the Third Report of the Research Programme into Alternative Policing Approaches towards the Management of Conflict issued by the Northern Ireland Office in December 2002.

    The statement recommended further work in three areas to clarify cardiac hazards associated with the use of taser on individuals who could be considered to have a greater risk of adverse effects. Although DOMILL did not consider this research essential, it was commissioned last autumn. The work is being carried out by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) under contract to the Police Scientific Development Branch of the Home Office.

    Terrorism
    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action is being taken to prevent UK citizens being encouraged and assisted to travel overseas to commit terrorist acts; and if he will make a statement [119001]

    Mr. Blunkett
    The police and Security Service attach a high priority to monitoring the activities of those in the United Kingdom who are suspected of involvement in terrorism overseas. It is an offence under the Terrorism Act 2000 to incite another person to commit an act of terrorism wholly or partly outside the United Kingdom. It is also an offence under the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 to conspire in this country to commit an act of terrorism overseas. Where there is any evidence of any offence being committed under this or any other counter-terrorist legislation, then action is taken.

    We have made clear our abhorrence of terrorism and of those who plan or commit terrorist acts.

    Blackpool Tower Project
    John Mann
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total costs of the Blackpool Tower project were in the first three months of this year. [119271]

    Ms Blears
    On the basis of information provided by the Lancashire Constabulary, total costs of the Blackpool area Basic Command Unit Tower project for the first three months of this year include multi-agency funding of £99,333.25, of which the Home Office Police Standards Unit contributed £19,241.00.

    John Mann
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment has been made of the effectiveness of the Tower project in Blackpool and Burnley. [119272]

    Ms Blears
    The Blackpool Tower scheme is a multi-agency project targeting persistent offenders. Its aims are to reduce crime combining police disruption and targeting tactics with the provision of drug treatment.272W
    Huddersfield University conducted an evaluation of the project, the final report of which is due shortly. Ministers will consider this evaluation and how its content should be shared.

  CABINET OFFICE

    Asbestos
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what actions the Cabinet Office, 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. [118851]

    Mr. Alexander
    The Cabinet Office has undertaken Asbestos surveys for the London and Basingstoke Estate, the GCDA's buildings, HMSO Norwich, the Emergency Planning College and the Centre for Management and Policy Studies Residential Training Centre at Sunningdale.

    The following action and costs were identified:

    London Estate—some asbestos has been identified. The advice of our specialist contractors is that there is no risk and no need to take any actions unless areas are disturbed due to building works. Costs of required measures will be identified and incorporated into any project costs at the time of the works.

    Basingstoke Estate—the control of Asbestos is the responsibility of the building's Landlord. Some low risk asbestos was found and removed. No costs are anticipated.

    GCDA—the survey concluded that there was no asbestos on the site, or in any consumable/vehicle workshop products. The results of the survey are being reviewed but no costs are anticipated.

    HMSO Norwich—the control of Asbestos is the responsibility of the Landlord of the premises. No risk has been identified and no costs are anticipated

    Emergency Planning College—the survey identified some risk 1 asbestos, which has now all been removed. All other traces of asbestos which were recommended for removal or treatment will be dealt with by September 2003. In addition some asbestos has been identified in buildings due for demolition as part of the College's major accommodation upgrade and will be dealt with as part of the demolition process in September 2004. The cost of all these works will be some £48,000.

    Centre for Management and Policy Studies Residential Training Centre at Sunningdale—some asbestos has been detected and is registered. The PPP partner within the site development works is handling its removal, under appropriate guidance and control. The risk is borne by them at no further cost to the College.

    Correspondence
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when the Paymaster General will reply to the letter
    273W
    from the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell of 29 April on behalf of Mrs. P. Cooper of Ewell, forwarded to his Department by the Treasury on 6 June. [119862]

    Mr. Alexander
    A reply was sent to the hon. Member today.

  MINISTER FOR WOMEN

    Disabled Women
    Mrs. Calton
    To ask the Minister for Women what recent consultations she has had with the Minister for Disability about access to work for disabled women. [118481]

    Ms Hewitt
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), the former Deputy Minister for Women and I have regularly met with our Department of Work and Pensions ministerial colleagues on a range of employment questions, including in relation to gender and disability.

    Most recently, I attended a breakfast meeting at 11 Downing Street with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to discuss with senior business leaders increasing employment opportunities for disabled people.

    Temporary Agency Workers
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Minister for Women what the implications will be for(a) women employed as temporary agency workers in Government Departments and (b) for the Government as their employees of the European Agency Workers Directive. [118409]

    Ms Hewitt
    The Directive is currently under discussion at the European level, and until a final version is agreed, its implications will remain unclear. There is a risk that additional costs arising as a result of the Directive may reduce employment opportunities for temporary agency workers, including for women in the public sector. The Government are working to ensure that the Directive protects temporary agency workers without putting their jobs at risk.

    We believe that the impact of the Directive, as it is currently drafted, on the hourly pay of female temporary agency workers in the public sector would be insignificant and will not have any significant impact on public sector costs.

    An assessment of the overall impact of the Directive as drafted is detailed in the regulatory impact assessment, of which the House Library has a copy.

  CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

    Adults with Incapacity
    Mr. Cameron
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans she has to introduce a Bill on adults with incapacity. [119251]

    Mr. Lammy
    My Department is currently preparing a Draft Mental Incapacity Bill for publication, based on our Policy Statement, 'Making Decisions'. We will introduce legislation when parliamentary time allows.

    Immigration Adjudicators
    Keith Vaz
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many adjudicators are in post; and how many are(a) full-time and (b) part-time. [119529]

    Mr. Lammy
    As at 13 June 2003, there were 587 adjudicators in post with the Immigration Appellate Authority. These include the Chief Adjudicator, the Deputy Chief Adjudicator, nine Regional Adjudicators and six Deputy Regional Adjudicators. In total, there are 168 permanent adjudicators and 419 fee paid adjudicators.

    Immigration Appeal Tribunal
    Keith Vaz
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans the Lord Chancellor has to abolish the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. [119527]

    Mr. Lammy
    On 22 May 2003, the Government announced their intention to draw up further legislative proposals to build on the measures in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. One such proposal involves the creation of a single tier of appeal. The policy is currently being developed in greater detail and an announcement will be made in due course.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Frank Field
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many users of legal aid have over the past five years had bills settled(a) in excess of £1 million, (b) between £500,000 and £1 million, (c) between £250,000 and £500,000, (d) between £100,000 and £250,000, (e) between £50,000 and £100,000 and (f) under £50,000. [117850]

    Mr. Lammy
    The information needed to answer the question is not readily available, and the answer could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  HEALTH

    Additives
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure food products contain(a) the name and (b) the number of additives in the list of ingredients. [116888]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    European rules implemented here by the Food Labelling Regulations 1996 already require additives to be identified in the list of ingredients by their function, for example, "preservative', 'colour' and either their specific name or serial number except where specific exemptions apply. There are no plans to require the name and the serial number to be given, although there is nothing to prevent this from being done voluntarily.

    Alcohol Dependency
    Mrs. Calton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are in place to provide a multi-agency
    275W
    approach to treatment for those with alcohol dependency who also have mental health and other drug problems. [119906]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The Department of Health issued guidance last year on the management and delivery of effective treatment for adults with severe mental illness and co-existing drug or alcohol misuse problems. The guidance highlights the responsibilities of drug action teams and local implementation teams to work together locally in order to implement the guidance in accordance with local needs.

    The National Treatment Agency for substance misuse has also issued guidance in the last year for commissioners, 'Models of Care'. The framework of this guidance applies to alcohol and drug treatment services and strongly supports the development of multi-agency approaches to treatment based on comprehensive assessment of needs, including for those with dual diagnoses. In addition, the National Institute for Mental Health in England is also working to identify how access to effective treatment can be improved and waiting times reduced. Many of the services affected by this work are joint drug and alcohol services.

    The Department of Health is preparing a new strategy on alcohol harm reduction which will set out a coherent and practical framework for a responsible approach which reinforces the message about sensible drinking and seeks to tackle alcohol misuse in all its forms. The NHS Plan said that we will be implementing the strategy by 2004, and we are on course to achieve that target. The Cabinet Office strategy unit is to undertake a project on alcohol misuse. Conclusions from the project will form the basis of the Government's alcohol strategy.

    Cancelled Operations
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many routine operations were cancelled by each hospital trust in the week of star rating assessments at the end of March. [116470]

    Mr. Hutton
    [holding answer 3 June 2003]: Data are collected quarterly on the number of operations cancelled by the hospital for non-clinical reasons in two categories. There are operations cancelled at the last minute, that is on the day patients are due to arrive or after arrival in hospital or on the day of their operation, and (in 2002–03 only) operations cancelled on the day of surgery.

    Cancelled operations data at England level and by national health service trust and strategic health authority level are available in the Library and on the Department's website at: www.doh.gov.uk/ hospitalactivity/data_requests.htm. Data for the quarter corresponding to March 2003 are not yet available.

    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS operations were cancelled in(a) March and (b) February 2003. [116876]

    Mr. Hutton
    [holding answer 3 June 2003]: Data are collected quarterly on the number of operations cancelled by the hospital for non-clinical reasons in two categories. There are operations cancelled at the last minute, that is on the day patients are due to arrive or
    276W
    after arrival in hospital or on the day of their operation, and (in 2002–03 only) operations cancelled on the day of surgery.

    Cancelled operations data at England level and by national health service trust and strategic health authority level are available in the Library and on the Department's website at: www.doh.gov.uk/ hospitalactivity/data_requests.htm

    Data for the quarter corresponding to February and March 2003 are not yet available.

    Cardiac Services
    Mr. Kevan Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are being taken to assist NHS trusts and PCTs in making available latest innovations in the diagnosis and treatment of sudden cardiac death. [118522]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The Department's National Screening Committee will be reconsidering whether, in the light of recent research, to recommend screening for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (the most common condition causing sudden adult death syndrome) later this year.

    Chemical Attacks (Preparations)
    Dr. Murrison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on conclusions drawn by NHS trusts from exercises in response to a chemical, biological or radiological incident since 11 September 2001. [104161]

    Mr. Hutton
    All national health service trusts have major incident plans in place and there are regular exercises to test these plans. Chemical, biological radiological and nuclear (CBRN) incidents are now considered at every planning meeting between Health Emergency Planning Advisers (HEPAs) and NHS trusts and are a significant focus of all NHS emergency planning development.

    The emergency response division of the HPA has introduced a system to record centrally all exercises undertaken in the NHS and will be disseminating lessons learned. NHS trusts have, since 11 September 2001, been provided with greater amounts of improved personal protective equipment (PPE) and decontamination equipment. Training for dealing with CBRN incidents is also being urgently rolled out. NHS trusts have been working with local HEPAs to assess their capability to respond to CBRN incidents and lessons learned from these assessments are being implemented.

    The HPA is also working with NHS trusts to improve emergency preparedness, particularly through a much expanded programme of exercises. Training needs are being identified and targeted training is being delivered. Consideration is also being given to staff turnover and the need for a programme of continuous training to be offered. Work being taken forward under the New Dimensions Project will also engage NHS trusts in a more integrated emergency response to CBRN threats together with other partner agencies.

    Chemicals
    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the impact on human health of(a) wood preservative and varnishing products, (b) alkylphenols, (c) brominated flame retardants, (d) organotin compounds, (e) phthalate esters, (f) short-chain chlorinated paraffins and (g) phthalates DEHP and DBP in products; what advice has been given to the public relating to their use; and if he will make a statement. [119083]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    Wood preservatives and the use of organotin compounds in antifouling products are controlled under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 (as amended). The independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP) most recently considered the wood preservative substance IPBC, and is awaiting responses from the industry before recommending any necessary regulatory action on the 101 products containing this substance. The most recent review of a wood preservative before that was copper/ chrome/arsenic in November 2000, and the ACP recommended that approvals for the 32 products containing this could continue, subject to certain conditions. The organotin compounds, tributyltin oxide and tributyltin naphthenate, have previously been considered by the ACP. Information on assessments by the ACP are published on the following website: http:// www.pesticides.gov.uk/committees/acp/acp.htm

    Advice on the safe use of pesticide products is given on product labels.

    The majority of the other substances or groups of substances have been the subject of comprehensive risk assessment under the European Union Existing Substances Regulation (ESR). This has included nonylphenol (an alkylphenol), several brominated fire retardants, short-chain chlorinated paraffins and a number of phthalate esters, including DEHP and 1D BP.

    For some, the United Kingdom competent authority, the Health and Safety Executive and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, acting jointly, have produced the risk assessment on behalf of all EU member states. Assessments that have been agreed by member states are publicly available on the website of the European Chemicals Bureau at: http://ecb.jrc.it/ existinq-chemicals/

    No advice has been given by the Department to the public relating to the use of these compounds.

    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact on human health of(a) paints containing a high amount of volatile solvents and (b) adhesives and sealants marketed for use in the home; what advice has been given to the public relating to their use; and if he will make a statement. [119086]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The Department's Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) considered the health effects of exposures to volatile organic compounds in the home in 1997. This applied to volatile organic compounds from a variety of sources. COMEAP's conclusions are published on its website at: www.doh.gov.uk/comeap/pdfs/comeap9798.pdf 278W
    The Government commissioned the Medical Research Council Institute for Environment and Health to produce a leaflet to assist environmental health officers in giving advice to members of the public. This leaflet is available at: www.le.ac.uk/ieh/pdf/vocslflt.pdf

    Food Standards
    Mr. Martlew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health which companies were found by the Food Standards Agency to be selling salami containing horse and donkey meat, which was not identified on the label. [118553]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The pilot survey, which was funded by the Food Standards Agency and carried out by five trading standards departments, found that three products contained undeclared horse meat. Two products, a peppered salami and Cervalat salami, were of the brand L'Artibon and these were purchased from Safeway in Durham. The third sample was labelled as a wild boar salami, manufactured by Bernadi Gastone of Pisa, Italy and sold by Alvini North, a wholesaler in Leeds.

    Mr. Martlew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to prosecute retailers that are selling salami that contains horse and donkey meat where the meat is not identified on the label. [118557]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    Local authorities are responsible for enforcement of food law. The three samples of salamis found positive for horse DNA in the pilot survey funded by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) were the subject of further investigation by two local authorities. Formal samples of a different batch of product were taken at a later date, but were subsequently found to be negative for horse DNA and no further action is possible on these samples. The FSA is carrying out a larger, nation wide survey on salami and salami-type products to determine the extent of this problem. If further unidentified horse meat is detected, local authorities will be encouraged to take formal action.

    Food Supplements
    Mr. Colman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what methodology was used in setting the upper limit for intake of vitamin B6 supplements at 10 mg. [119130]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    Details on the methodology used are contained in the Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals' (EVM) report, a copy of which is available in the Library. The EVM reviewed over 200 pieces of information on vitamin B6 from both animal and human studies. The available human data were considered inadequate for use in risk assessment. The EVM concluded that, based on the most appropriate animal data, 10 mg per day represents a clear safe upper level, with no adverse effects being anticipated over a lifetime's exposure. This reinforces existing Government advice, which has not changed.

    Mr. Colman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultation took place between Food Standards Agency scientists and(a) the Institute for Optimum Nutrition and (b) other bodies with specialistss

    279W
    knowledge of vitamin supplements on the decision to reduce the limit for intake of B6 supplements to 10 mg. [119131]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The Institute for Optimum Nutrition and other bodies had the opportunity to provide views and evidence on vitamin B6 and other vitamins and minerals during the Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals' (EVM) deliberations. The draft EVM report was issued for a 12-week public consultation. Over 100 replies to the consultation were received, including a detailed response from the Institute for Optimum Nutrition, which were considered by the EVM in finalising its report.

    Hospital Treatment Records
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients who are Welsh residents have been treated in English hospitals in each of the last five years for which records are available; and if he will list(a) the top 10 procedures carried out on such patients and (b) the numbers of each procedure carried out. [117280]

    Most common operation procedures for Welsh residents by year from 1997–98 to 2001–02

    Operation code

    Operation description

    1997–98

    1998–99

    1999–2000

    2000–01

    2001–02

    K45

    Transluminal Balloon Angioplasty of Coronary Artery

    —

    —

    —

    —

    260

    G45

    Total Prosthetic Replacement of Hip Joint Using Cement

    240

    257

    249

    347

    375

    H22

    Surgical Removal of Tooth

    284

    325

    286

    317

    C79

    Prosthesis of Lens

    522

    503

    487

    768

    649

    H25

    Operations on Vitreous Body

    293

    323

    259

    —

    —

    X29

    Extracapsular Extraction of Lens

    —

    —

    —

    —

    267

    W37

    Diagnostic Fibreoptic Endoscopic Exam/Upper Gastrointestine

    858

    852

    977

    976

    655

    M45

    Diagnostic Endoscopic Examination of Colon

    279

    258

    284

    273

    —

    C75

    Diagnostic Endoscopic Examination of Bladder

    612

    563

    591

    663

    662

    C71

    Diag.Endo. Exam/Lower Bowel Using Fibreoptic Sigmoidoscopy

    255

    372

    433

    499

    383

    K49

    Contrast Radiology of Heart

    853

    1,023

    1,282

    1,517

    1,517

    F09

    Continuous Infusion of Therapeutic Substance

    444

    746

    834

    851

    1,063

    K63

    Connection of Thoracic Artery to Coronary Artery

    —

    —

    —

    285

    289

    Totals per year

    4,640

    5,222

    5,682

    6,496

    6,120

    Note:

    Where figures are not shown for a procedure, this procedure did not rank in the top ten for that year

    Source:

    Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

    Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
    Mr. David Stewart
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when the sixth edition of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's Code of Practice will be implemented; [119964]

    (2) how many responses have been received by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority on their current code of practice. [119966]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    [holding answer 17 June 2003]: Consultation on the sixth edition of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) code of practice will close on 8 August 2003. The HFEA hopes to publish the new edition for implementation by clinics in the autumn.

    The current code of practice was published in June 2001. The HFEA consulted stakeholders in clinics and professional bodies on the content of the code prior to publication.
    280W
    Mr. Hutton
    [holding answer 9 June 2003]: The data are shown in the tables.

    The figures given for Finished In-Year Admissions should be used to replace those that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Win Griffiths) on 3 June 2003, Official Report, column 20, which contained a definitional error and did not take account of improved methodology in compiling the data. I have written to my hon. Friend to apologise for the inadvertent error.

    Finished in-year admissions

    Number of admissions

    1997–98

    38,806

    1998–99

    39,490

    1999–2000

    40,694

    2000–01

    41,221

    2001–02

    40,983

    Note:

    A finished in-year admission is that first episode of care in one health care provider, starting in the April to March period indicated.

    Source:

    Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

    Mr. David Stewart
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been(a) interviewed and (b) visited by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority in each of the last four years. [119965]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    [holding answer 17 June 2003]: The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority does not collect statistics on the number of patients it interviews.

    Mental Health (Cornwall)
    Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been spent on mental health services in Cornwall in each of the last 10 years. [119392]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    Data on mental illness expenditure for primary care is not available. The table shows expenditure by the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly
    281W
    health authority area for secondary care mental health services commissioned from 1996–97 to 2001–02. Information on health authority expenditure before 1996–97 was not collected in the same format.

    Expenditure on mental illness

    £000

    Cornwall and Isles of Scilly area

    2001–02

    39,569

    2000–01

    33,966

    1999–2000

    26,647

    1998–99

    27,260

    1997–98

    24,519

    1996–97

    25,894

    Primary Care Trusts
    Andy Burnham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cumulative net surplus or deficit from target was for each primary care trust in(a) 2003–04, (b) 2004–05 and (c) 2005–06. [117937]

    Mr. Hutton
    Primary care trusts do not have a target related to a cumulative net surplus or deficit.

    Total pay costs incurred from 1996–97 to 2002–03

    £000

    Agency

    1996–97

    1997–98

    1998–99

    1999–2000

    2000–01

    2001–02

    2002–03

    Medical devices agency (MDA)

    4,224

    4,394

    4,610

    4,688

    4,752

    5,086

    15,482

    Meat hygiene service (MHS)

    28,932

    33,909

    39,583

    39,603

    38,525

    42,108

    244,765

    Medicines control agency (MCA)

    12,512

    14,700

    16,714

    17,885

    18,299

    20,094

    321,856

    1 Data from management accounts.

    2 Subject to audit by the National Audit Office.

    3 An estimate based on the unaudited management accounts and thus subject to change.

    Post-cardiac Rehabilitation
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision is made in national service frameworks for post-cardiac rehabilitation. [119051]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    Provision for cardiac rehabilitation is addressed in standard 12 of the national service framework for coronary heart disease. This states that,"NHS Trusts should put in place agreed protocols/systems of care so that, prior to leaving hospital, people admitted to hospital suffering from coronary heart disease have been invited to participate in a multidisciplinary programme of secondary prevention and cardiac rehabilitation. The aim of the programme will be to reduce their risk of subsequent cardiac problems and to promote their return to a full and normal life".

  LORD CHANCELLORS DEPARTMENT

    Transsexuals
    Mr. Ben Chapman
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans the Lord Chancellor has to bring forward legislative proposals to ensure that transsexuals are accorded the same level of rights whether or not the end of the gender realignment process is clear. [118794]

    Private Finance Initiative
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the use by NHS trusts of new funding approaches for the development of premises under public-private partnerships outside present PFI arrangements. [116895]

    Mr. Hutton
    The Private Finance Initiative continues to help deliver the biggest hospital building programme in the history of the national health service.

    We will continue to keep other methods and models of funding for capital investment under review.

    Pay Costs
    Mr. Norman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 7 March 2003,Official Report, columns 1273–74W, on staff numbers, what the total pay costs incurred by the (a) Medical Devices Agency, (b) Meat Hygiene Service and (c) Medicines Control Agency were in each year since 1997. [113378]

    Mr. Hutton
    The information requested is shown in the table.

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    The Government are committed to legislating as soon as possible to give transsexual people their Convention rights. We aim to publish a draft Bill later this Session with substantive legislation Following when parliamentary time allows. The draft Bill will give legal recognition in their acquired gender to transsexual people who can demonstrate that they have taken decisive steps towards living fully and permanently in the gender acquired since they were registered at birth.

    Changing legal identity is a serious step, with significant consequences. It is important that no one should embark upon formal recognition in the acquired gender without convincing evidence. We will therefore propose that applications should be scrutinised by an authorising body, given legal powers to assess medical evidence before the transsexual person is allowed to register in the new gender. In some cases, where the person undertook gender reassignment years earlier, and has lived successfully in the acquired gender, that assessment may be straightforward. In other cases, the authorising body will need to be assured that, in addition to meeting medical criteria, the transsexual person has lived successfully in the acquired gender for at least two years. The medical criteria may include medical treatments to modify the person's sexual characteristics, but the Government will not require

    283W
    surgery as a condition of registration in the acquired gender.

    World Summit on Sustainable Development
    Mr. Horam
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department 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 Agreements in advance of the 2004 Spending Review. [113883]
    284W
    Mr. Leslie
    The current delivery plans for my Department do not incorporate specific commitments from the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). The Department is not one of the Government Departments identified as having direct responsibility for delivery of the commitments as set out in the interdepartmentally-agreed Annex to the Memorandum submitted to the Environmental Audit Committee in response to their enquiry on WSSD follow-up.

    Nevertheless, my Department will work to support Government policy on sustainability wherever the opportunity arises.

  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

    Animal By-products
    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when her Department plans to start its proposed subscription scheme to deal with carcases that can no longer be buried on farm land as a result of the implementation of the EU Animal By-products Regulation; [118915]

    (2) what plans her Department has for the disposal of fallen stock in the time between the ban on burial of carcases on farms and the beginning of the subscription scheme; [118916]

    (3) what the cost will be to the average farmer in (a) England and (b) each region of the new arrangements for the disposal of carcases following the implementation of the EU Animal By-products Regulation; and whether the Government will be making financial assistance available; [118917]

    (4) what alternatives to the subscription scheme her Department is offering to farmers to help them dispose of animal carcases following the introduction of the EU Animal By-products Regulation. [118919]

    Mr. Bradshaw
    [holding answer 17 June 2003]: There was a low response rate of 30 per cent. from livestock farmers to the letter inviting interest in a national scheme. In the light of this disappointing response, the Government are now considering whether the scheme should go ahead, and if so, in what form.

    A national scheme was proposed in order to reduce the cost of collecting and disposal of fallen stock and to encourage compliance with the Regulation. However, an infrastructure of knackers' yards and renderers is already in place, and we would expect farmers to have been complying with the new rules from 1 May 2003. There is a help line in place for farmers to use if they do not know what disposal services exist in their area. The help line number is: 0845 8507070.

    In the absence of a scheme, costs to the farmer of disposal of fallen stock would depend on the type and number of animals on the farm and its location. Under the proposed scheme, small farms would pay £50, medium farms £100 and large farms £200 in the first year. Additional costs of the scheme would be subsidised by Government on a digressive basis over three years.

    Additional information on the disposal of animal carcases is available on the Defra website at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/by-prods/default.htm and from local Defra Animal Health Offices.

    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures her Department is putting in place to ensure that under the subscription scheme to collect carcases from farms(a) carcass collection will take place promptly to avoid vermin infestation and the smell of rotting carcasses and (b) vehicles coming on to farmland to pick up carcasses do not spread disease from different areas. [118918]
    286W
    Mr. Bradshaw
    [holding answer 17 June 2003]: No decision has yet been made on whether to proceed with he proposed subscription scheme.

    Although no specific time has been specified, we would envisage that fallen stock will, once an approved collector has been notified, normally be collected within 24 hours and not more than 48 hours.

    This would be consistent with existing contractual arrangements where collectors are expected to carry out the collection of fallen bovines and ovines within 24 hours for TSE testing purposes.

    The Animal By-Products Regulation requires animal by-products to be consigned or disposed of "without undue delay", which in essence means as soon as is reasonably practicable, taking into account the circumstances of the case.

    Any person in possession of animal by-products, such as fallen stock, who do not comply with the Regulation may face prosecution. Prosecutions may result in a fine of up to £5,000 and six months' imprisonment for cases heard in a magistrates court or an unlimited fine and up to two years imprisonment for cases heard in the Crown Court.

    Asbestos
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the actions her 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 she has made an estimate of the cost of compliance; and if she will make a statement. [117699]

    Alun Michael
    Defra already has asbestos registers for each of its buildings, including those of its executive agencies. To comply with the new regulations Defra and its agencies have commissioned additional surveys of these properties. Specialist consultants are currently surveying buildings to try to identify any hidden asbestos. They will then prepare plans advising whether we should remove it or manage it. The programme of surveys and production of management plans will be completed by March 2004.

    The estimated cost of surveying properties and preparing management plans is £250,000. It is too early to produce an estimate for any removal or retention as we currently await the completion of our survey programme.

    Defra's non-departmental public bodies manage their own estates of buildings and land, and will therefore be responsible for complying with the new regulations.

    Batteries
    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) car batteries and (b) alkaline batteries were (i) purchased and used, (ii) disposed of by (A) landfill, (B) incineration and (C) other means, (iii) recycled and (iv) reused in the last year for which figures are available. [119073]
    287W
    Mr. Morley
    These figures are not collected centrally. However, part of a Government study (2000) carried out an assessment to forecast the consumption of batteries within the UK. For 2002, it was estimated that 12,986 tonnes of alkaline batteries and 111,016 tonnes of car batteries would be sold. The current recycling rate is estimated to be less than 2 per cent. for the alkaline batteries and 90 to 95 per cent. for car batteries in the UK.

    A proposal for a new EC Batteries Directive is expected this year, which will set targets for the collection and recycling of all types of batteries. It is likely to require member states to set up systems to monitor the quantities of all batteries recycled.

    Bovine Tuberculosis
    Mr. Martiew
    To ask the Secretary of State foc Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many cases of bovine TB there have been in Cumbria in each of the last five years. [116174]

    Mr. Morley
    Pursuant to my answer of 4 June 2003,Official Report, column 406W, the table shows the number of new bovine TB herd incidents and confirmed new bovine TB incidents in Cumbria 1998–2002. A TB incident is confirmed if typical lesions are found at post mortem, or if Mycobacterium bovis (the causative organism for bovine tuberculosis) is isolated from tissue samples in laboratory examination.

    Operator (Works)

    Fuel1

    1998

    1999

    2000

    2001

    2002

    Lafarge (Hope)

    Tyres

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2,880

    Lafarge (Cauldon)

    Tyres

    17,382

    13,695

    23,859

    27,869

    23,751

    Lafarge (Westbury)

    Tyres

    0

    3,635

    0

    1,333

    8,545

    Castle (Ketton)

    SLF

    26,645

    34,038

    30,782

    26,476

    31,834

    Tyres

    372

    1,932

    2,838

    1,472

    2,305

    Solid Waste

    0

    329

    551

    0

    7,890

    Castle (Ribblesdale)

    SLF

    41,812

    40,113

    15,829

    34,189

    47,184

    Rugby (Barrington)

    SLF

    19,932

    24,647

    21,531

    22,837

    19,327

    Rugby (Southam)

    SLF

    10,792

    9,148

    1,554

    Closed

    Closed

    Blue Circle (Blakenham)

    SLF

    2,721

    216

    Closed

    Closed

    Closed

    1 SLF ("Substitute Liquid Fuel") includes both Cemfuel(r). Solid Water is exclusive Profuel(r) manufactured from paper, cardboard and packaging type wastes.

    PVC
    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent research has been conducted into the impact on the environment of the production and disposal of PVC-u; and what chemicals may be released(a) upon disposal and (b) during production. [119087]

    Mr. Morley
    A number of studies into the impact of PVC-u on the environment have been carried out including:

    "The Behaviour of PVC in Landfill", for the European Commission DGXI (2000);
    "PVC: An Evaluation Using the Natural Step Framework", The Natural Step (2000); and
    "The Life Cycle Assessment of PVC and Alternatives", for the ex- Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (2000).
    The European Commission is currently conducting a rigorous assessment of all published PVC life-cycle studies to ensure the availability of sound data on which
    288W

    Bovine TB in Cumbria, 1998–2002

    New herd incidents

    New confirmed herd incidents

    1998

    8

    0

    1999

    9

    1

    2000

    4

    1

    2001

    2

    0

    2002

    33

    6

    Note:

    In 2001, the TB testing and control programme was largely suspended due to the foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreak. Since testing resumed in 2002, resources have been concentrated on herds with overdue TB tests which would have had a longer period in which to contract the disease. Also, the proportion of high-risk herds being tested post-FMD is greater than that prior to the outbreak. This includes herds restocked post-FMD where additional testing is being carried out to manage the increased risk posed by the movement of infected cattle into re-formed herds. As a result, the number of new herd incidents in 2002 is not comparable to that of previous years.

    Cement Kilns
    Mr. Bill O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many tonnes of waste were used in cement kilns in the years 1998 to 2002; and if she will make a statement. [115771]

    Mr. Morley
    The amount in tonnes of waste burnt in cement kilns in England and Wales is contained in the following table as reported to the Environment Agency for the years 1998 to 2002.

    to develop future policy in this area. This is expected to De published by the end of 2003 and will include Information on the impacts of production and disposal.

    (a) Disposal—PVC is generally disposed of either to landfill or to incineration. In both cases there is no specific separation of PVC from other waste streams such as municipal waste.

    Incineration of PVC has the potential to produce a number of chemicals such as hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and small quantities of dioxins and furans. Incineration of waste is regulated under Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC), and tight limits are imposed on releases from incinerators to ensure the protection of health and the environment.

    The PVC polymer is generally considered to be stable under landfill conditions, but there is a potential for losses of plasticisers and stabilisers from flexible PVC to

    289W
    occur. The behaviour of PVC in landfill is a complex subject and further information may be obtained from the above European Commission report at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste/studies/ pvc/landfill.pdf

    The Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC requires that landfills comply with a number of technical standards regarding the protection of soil and water, including leachate collection, bottom sealing and gas emission control.

    (b) Production—during production of the vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) there is the potential for emissions of VCM, chlorine, ethylene, ethylene dichloride, HCI and other chlorinated by-products to occur. Due to this pollution potential, production has been regulated for many years under Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) and will be regulated under IPPC. During compounding and transformation of PVC, there is the potential for release of the antioxidants, plasticisers and pigments used, but closed processes mean that any release would be small.

    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the weight of consumer goods known to contain PVC(a) disposed of by (i) landfill, (ii) incineration and (iii) other means, (b) recycled and (c) reused, in the last year for which figures are available. [119088]

    Mr. Morley
    Information on waste arisings held by the Environment Agency are based on the Agency's special waste database, which comprises records of each load of special waste moved, and on the commercial and industrial waste survey.

    PVC is not classified as a special waste and so does not appear on the special waste database. The commercial and industrial waste survey is a sample survey of approximately 18,000 businesses, but it does not include the level of detail to establish the weight of PVC in waste consumer goods or the proportion disposed by different routes. The Government's Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) will shortly be funding a comprehensive research project into options for PVC recycling in the UK. The research will identify the relevant sources of waste, assess reprocessing options and investigate potential end markets for the reprocessed materials.

    Chemicals (Environmental Impact)
    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the environmental impact of (1)(a) alkylphenols, (b) brominated flame retardants, (c) organotin compounds, (d) phthalate esters, (e) short-chain chlorinated paraffins and (f) phthalates DEHP and DBP in products; and if she will make a statement; [119068]

    (2) textile and leather finishing treatments; and if she will make a statement. [119069]

    Alun Michael
    The Existing Substances Regulation (ESR) (793/93/EEC) is the main mechanism through which assessments have been carried out on the environmental impact of existing chemicals. As part of 290W
    the UK's responsibility as a member state of the European Union, the Government have published the risk assessments and risk reduction strategies for certain alkylphenols, brominated flame retardants and short chain chlorinated paraffins. The Environment Agency undertook a general review of alkylphenols last year and the final reports are due June 2003. The UK is currently working jointly with the French Competent Authority in producing a risk reduction strategy for decabromodiphenylether—a brominated flame retardant.

    Organotin compounds: The Department has commissioned a number of pieces of research to determine the extent to which use of tributyltin (TBT) as an antifoulant in maritime paints has contaminated the environment and caused effects in biological communities, such as the effect known as imposex in dogwhelks. These include surveys of TBT and imposex on the North Sea (1992 and 1998) and Irish Sea (1998) coasts and the study of the recovery of the benthic communities of the River Crouch in Essex following the 1987 ban on the use of TBT on small craft. Following further amendments to marketing and use restrictions on the use of TBT as a biocide in antifouling paints under Council Directive 2002/62/EC the Department is in the process of commissioning a further survey of effects and concentrations of TBT in UK waters.

    There has been no assessment of phthalate esters as group of substances, but DEHP and DBP are part of this group.

    DEHP (diethylhexylphthalate) is being assessed under the Existing Substances Regulation by the Swedish competent authority. A draft risk reduction strategy has been produced.

    DBP (dibutylphthalate) is also being assessed under ESR by the Dutch Competent Authority. A risk assessment was produced in July 2001.

    Risk Assessments are published on the European Chemicals Bureau website http://ecb.jrc.it/existingchemicals/

    (2) There has been no systematic assessment of the environmental impact of textile and leather finishing treatments. Risk Assessments have been carried on a range of substances used in finishing treatments for leather and textiles such as detergents, azo dyes, alkylphenols, brominated flame-retardants and chlorinated paraffins under the work of the Existing Substances Regulations (793/93/EEC). Textile coating and leather finishing processes using more than 5 tonnes of solvent a year have been regulated domestically under the Environmental Protection Act since 1992, and are now subject to the provisions of the European Solvent Emissions Directive (1999/13/EC).

    Clinical Waste
    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much clinical waste she estimates was disposed of by
    291W
    (a) landfill, (b) incineration and (c) other means in the last year for which figures are available, broken down by types of clinical waste. [119071]

    Mr. Morley
    The commercial and industrial waste survey carried out by the Environment Agency for 1998–99 estimated that, in England and Wales, health care establishments produced almost 750,000 tonnes of different wastes associated with their activities, although only part of this could be considered clinical waste. In 2001, the most recent year for which data are available, the Environment Agency special waste database reports some 5,500 tonnes of clinical waste consigned as special waste. Details of how these wastes were managed are given in the table.

    Thousand tonnes

    Type of disposal

    Waste from health care

    Special clinical waste

    Landfill

    17

    0.2

    Incineration

    234

    3.2

    Other

    490

    2.1

    Total

    741

    5.5

    Departmental Property (Angel Group)
    Mr. Peter Bradley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the properties acquired by the Angel Group and its subsidiaries from the Department and its agencies and the(a) dates and (b) costs of their acquisition. [118836]

    Alun Michael
    Neither the Department nor any of its Executive Agencies have sold property to the Angel Group or its subsidiaries.

    Departmental Website
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what actions she has taken or is taking to ensure that the websites of her Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are accessible to partially sighted and blind people; and if she will make a statement. [117356]

    Alun Michael
    It is our policy, and that of our agencies, that new or redesigned websites should be accessible in line with the World Wide Web Consortium's Web Accessibility Initiative's guidelines, as detailed in the Guidelines for UK Government websites. These include specific provision for blind and partially-sighted users. In implementing Defra's new corporate identity on our web site, we have incorporated a number of improvements into the design specifically to increase the ease of use of the site by people who are visually or physically impaired.

    Farming Subsidies
    Mr. Cameron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations her Department has received about plans to use the period 2000–03 as the reference point for subsidy payments to farmers; and if she will make a statement. [117148]

    Mr. Bradshaw
    There has been general support from consultees for the proposed 2000–02 single payment scheme reference period, including the special provisions for farmers affected by force majeure or exceptional circumstances. However, there have been a292W
    number of representations seeking additional flexibility to ensure farmers are not disadvantaged by, for example, changing the nature of their business or acquiring land during or after the reference period. In the on-going CAP reform negotiations, we continue to explore with the European Commission and others the best means to protect the interests of such farmers.

    Flood Defence
    Mr. Gardiner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 7 May 2003,Official Report, column 714W, if she will publish details of the representations. [119214]

    Mr. Morley
    A report on the outcome of consultations on the Flood and Coastal Defence Funding Review was placed on the Defra website in October 2002. In accordance with normal practice, copies of the individual responses to consultation have been placed in the Defra library for public inspection.

    Flood Risk Insurance
    Mr. Salmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when Ministers or officials in her Department have met representatives from the Association of British Insurers since January 2002 to discuss Flood Risk Insurance; and what the outcome was in each case; [119586]

    (2) what discussions Ministers or officials in her Department have held with representatives from the Association of British Insurers since January to discuss the agreement between the Government and the ABI on flood risk insurance which concluded at the end of December 2002. [119587]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 17 June 2003]: Defra and HM Treasury Ministers and officials met regularly with the Association of British Insurers (ABI) throughout 2002 to ensure continuance of flood cover for as many people as possible. The outcome of these discussions was a Statement of Principles announced by the ABI in September 2002.

    Since January 2003, Defra and Treasury Ministers met the ABI on 20 May. Officials from both Government and ABI continue to meet regularly to discuss progress against the statement of principles.

    Genetically Modified Organisms
    Mr. Fallon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to implement the recommendations of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee's Fifth Report of Session 2001–02, on Genetically Modified Organisms. [119545]

    Mr. Morley
    The Government response published on 24 October 2002 agreed with all of the conclusions and recommendations in the Committee's report. This centred on the then proposed GM public debate, now underway, and eventual decisions on the commercial cultivation of GM crops. We have implemented, or are implementing, all the recommendations relevant to Government.
    293W
    Alan Simpson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the precautionary principle, set out in the EU Directive 2001/18/EC and in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, has been adhered to in the farm scale evaluation programme; and if it is her policy that it will be adhered to in the Government's forthcoming decisions relating to GM crops. [118575]

    Mr. Morley
    The Government is firmly committed to taking a precautionary approach to decision making on GMO releases, this had always been the case under directive 90/220/EEC and is now explicitly recognised in directive 2001/18/EC and the national legislation that transposes it. Each proposed GMO release is subject to an evidence-based, case-by-case assessment of the potential risks to human health or the environment and approved only if the applicant can satisfy the regulatory authorities that all appropriate measures are being taken to avoid adverse effects.

    The farm scale evaluations are an example of the Government's precautionary approach working in practice. In 1998, a genuine concern was raised about the potential impact on farmland wildlife of the herbicide use associated with GM herbicide-tolerant crops. We established the programme to investigate these concerns, and secured the agreement of the biotechnology industry that no GM crops would be grown commercially in the UK until the evaluations were complete.

    The companies who developed the GM crops in the evaluations had already made applications at European level through directive 90/220 for approval for commercial cultivation. This requires the submission of a comprehensive dossier of information about the GMO and its properties and an environmental risk assessment. In one case (T25 maize) approval for commercial cultivation had already been granted. The risks to the environment of carrying out the farm scale evaluations were explicitly addressed before they commenced based on advice from the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. The trials have been closely monitored and could and would have been halted if necessary.

    Andrew George
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received from the United States government regarding(a) the EU moratorium on the growing of GM crops and (b) the licensing of GM crops in the EU. [119258]

    Mr. Morley
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regularly discusses issues raised by GM crops with her counterparts from the United States and other nations. However, details of these exchanges are not recorded centrally.

    Andrew George
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many invitations have been sent out for each of the planned debates on GM crops; [119260]
    294W
    (2) what assessment she has made of the adequacy of the size of each venue chosen to host GM public debates. [119261]

    Mr. Morley
    GM Nation?—the public debate on GM issues—is being conducted by an independent steering board at arm's length from Government. The regional launch meetings organised by the steering board in Birmingham, Swansea, Taunton, Belfast, Glasgow and Harrogate were open to the public on a first come, first served basis—no specific invitations were issued. The events involved facilitated active participation in small discussion groups, which limited their overall size, and the venues chosen were sufficient for this purpose. In the event, the numbers of tickets requested were in line with the capacity of all the venues selected. Two sessions were held at Taunton in response to public demand.

    In addition to these regional launch events, local authorities, other organisations and members of the public are being encouraged to organise their own local debates with the help of a debate toolkit. Copies of the toolkit are provided for each participant and facilitators can be provided on request for the larger county council level meetings. Members of the public can also get involved in the debate through the interactive debate website at www.gmnation.org.uk.

    Illegal Logging
    Ms Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the EU action plan to address the trade in illegal logging will be discussed by the Council of Ministers; and if she will make a statement. [119397]

    Mr. Morley
    The Communication from the Commission on Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade was raised by the UK and Denmark at Environment Council on 13 June 2003. The UK urged the Presidency to facilitate a full discussion in Council at an early time.

    Ms Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the next steps in the(a) development and (b) implementation of the EU action plan to address the trade in illegal logging are; and if she will make a statement. [119398]

    Mr. Morley
    The Communication from the Commission on Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade was published on 21 May. The Commission request endorsement from Council and the European Parliament to:

    (a) Enter into negotiations for FLEGT Partnership agreements with wood producing countries;

    (b) Present a Regulation setting up the voluntary licensing scheme, in conjunction with wide stakeholder consultation; and

    (c) Review options for, and consider the impact of, further measures to support the Action Plan, including, in the absence of multilateral progress, the feasibility of legislation to control imports of illegally harvested timber, and report back to the Council on this work during 2004.

    295W

    (d) Member states are also asked to identify relevant national legislation which could be applied to address the illegal logging issue, and to inform the Commission of their findings.

    The UK Government are seeking an early discussion in Council in order to allow the Commission to take the process forward.

    Ms Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the UK Government will ensure that the EU action plan on illegal logging will include the introduction of legislation to ban the import of illegal timber into EU member states; and if she will make a statement. [119399]

    Mr. Morley
    The Communication from the Commission on Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade was published on 21 May. The Commission request endorsement from Council and the European Parliament to:

    (a) Enter into negotiations for FLEGT Partnership Agreements with wood producing countries;

    (b) Present a Regulation setting up the voluntary licensing scheme, in conjunction with wide stakeholder consultation; and

    (c) Review options for, and consider the impact of, further measures to support the Action Plan, including, in the absence of multilateral progress, the feasibility of legislation to control imports of illegally harvested timber, and report back to the Council on this work during 2004;

    (d) Member states are also asked to identify relevant national legislation which could be applied to address the illegal logging issue, and to inform the Commission of their findings.

    The UK Government are supportive of the proposed Action Plan, including the licensing scheme to prevent the importation of illegally harvested timber into the EU from participating countries and the review of options for further legislation to control imports of illegally harvested timber.

    Ms Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether it is the Government's policy to support the development of EU legislation to ban the import of illegal timber into Europe; and if she will make a statement. [119400]

    Mr. Morley
    The Communication from the Commission on Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade was published on 21 May. The Commission request endorsement from Council and the European Parliament to:

    (a) Enter into negotiations for FLEGT Partnership agreements with wood producing countries;

    (b) Present a Regulation setting up the voluntary licensing scheme, in conjunction with wide stakeholder consultation; and

    (c) Review options for, and consider the impact of, further measures to support the Action Plan, including, in the absence of multilateral progress, the feasibility of legislation to control imports of illegally harvested timber, and report back to the Council on this work during 2004.

    296W

    (d) Member states are also asked to identify relevant national legislation which could be applied to address the illegal logging issue, and to inform the Commission of their findings.

    The Government supports the Commission's proposal to review the options for legislation to control imports of illegally harvested timber, will help with related analysis and, together with other member states, will consider carefully the Commission's report.

    Landfill Licences
    Mr. Battle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 11 June 2003,Official Report, column 877W, for what reason the Environment Agency in Leeds wrote to residents on 10 June 2003 informing them that the modification to the licence applied for had been withdrawn. [119579]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 16 June 2003]: I understand from the Environment Agency that the letter was sent in response to one received by two members of the public, who had outlined their objection to the application, currently being considered by the Agency, for the modification of Waste Management Licence No 735 relating to a waste transfer station at Ingram Works, Wortley Moor Road, Leeds held by Harry Sanders Ltd.

    The response confirmed that the applicant had written formally to the Agency withdrawing that part of the modification application requesting the acceptance of bonded asbestos at the site. The remainder of the modification application is still being considered by the Agency.

    Radioactive Materials
    Gregory Barker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list locations licensed by her Department for the use of radioactive materials; and if she will make a statement. [117535]

    Mr. Morley
    None is licensed by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. In England and Wales registration of users of radioactivity is the responsibility of the Environment Agency.

    Recycling
    Joan Ruddock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of homes in England have(a) one material, (b) two materials, (c) three materials and (d) four materials or more collected from their home for recycling separately from their residual waste; and what percentage of household waste is recycled from homes in each of the above categories. [117818]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 9 June 2003]: The figures relate to 2001–02 which is the most recent year for which we have full statistics.
    297W
    The percentage of households with kerbside collection of recyclable materials:

    (a) one material—12 per cent.

    (b) two materials—11 per cent.

    (c) three materials—11 per cent.

    (d) four materials or more—24 per cent.

    This assumes co-mingled collection contains three materials.

    The recycling rate for each of the above is:

    (a) 6.7 per cent.

    (b) 10.1 per cent.

    (c) 10.8 per cent.

    (d) 11.7 per cent.

    These figures do not include any recyclates from civic amenity site collection which generally makes up about one third of the total figure—which is why the headline figure is higher.

    The reason for the absence is that kerbside recylate collections are monitored by the Waste Collection Authority and waste from the civic amenity sites are dealt with by the Waste Disposal Authority.

    Regulatory Bodies
    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the(a) number of staff employed by and (b) budget of each regulatory body for which her Department is responsible in each year since 1997. [117778]

    Alun Michael
    This information is available in published documents. The annual publication Public Bodies contains details of all non-departmental public bodies and public corporations sponsored by departments, and includes details of the number of staff employed at 31 March each year, and details of their annual government funding and expenditure. The latest published edition is Public Bodies 2002.

    Copies of Public Bodies 2002, and previous editions going back to 1982 are available in the Libraries of the House. It is also available, together with editions going back to 1998, at: http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/ agencies-publicbodies/publicbodies/index.shtm.

    Tourism
    Andrew George
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many visitors visited(a) the Brecon Beacons, (b) the Norfolk Broads, (c) Dartmoor, (d) Snowdonia, (e) Exmoor, (f) the Lake District, (g) Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, (h) the North York Moors, (i) Northumberland, (j) the Peak District, (k) the Pembrokeshire Coast and (l) the Yorkshire Dales in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998, (iii) 1999, (iv) 2000, (v) 2001, (vi) 2002 and (vii) 2003 to date. [119144]

    Alun Michael
    Statistics are not collected annually. The last comprehensive visitor survey of the national parks was undertaken in 1994. The figures for national parks in England and Wales are given in the following table. A new survey is to be undertaken in 2004.298W

    National park

    Visitor days

    Norfolk Broads

    5,361,000

    Dartmoor

    3,825,000

    Exmoor

    1,397,000

    Lake District

    13,925,000

    North York Moors

    7,790,000

    Northumberland

    1,408,000

    Peak District

    12,400,000

    Yorkshire Dales

    8,303,000

    Pembrokeshire Coast

    4,622,000

    Snowdonia

    6,568,000

    Brecon Beacons

    3,622,000

    Policy for national parks in Wales is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales. The national parks in Scotland come under the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament, which has established them, and did not exist at the time of the 1994 Survey.

    Veal Imports
    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what have been the total annual imports of veal from Holland for each year from 1985 to date. [119107]

    Mr. Bradshaw
    [holding answer 13 June 2003]: Official Overseas Trade Statistics do not separately identify veal. The following table shows the total annual imports of bovine meat from Holland for each year from 1985 to date.

    Bovine meat (fresh, chilled or frozen) with bone in

    Bovine meat (fresh, chilled or frozen) boneless

    Tonnes

    Thousand

    Tonnes

    Thousand

    1985

    4,996

    12,965

    6,468

    16,851

    1986

    7,950

    18,621

    7,174

    19,507

    1987

    8,122

    20,961

    9,700

    25,976

    1988

    15,481

    39,234

    10,354

    26,039

    1989

    11,798

    34,870

    8,119

    21,822

    1990

    5,666

    18,751

    5,794

    18,914

    1991

    7,419

    19,061

    5,512

    16,286

    1992

    3,804

    13,294

    4,538

    14,612

    1993

    4,200

    12,047

    3,816

    11,374

    1994

    3,662

    11,112

    5,040

    13,584

    1995

    1,794

    6,124

    6,389

    16,235

    1996

    3,123

    7,253

    8,986

    19,485

    1997

    3,455

    7,314

    14,126

    30,883

    1998

    2,311

    5,711

    7,105

    17,057

    1999

    1,767

    5,108

    8,167

    19,160

    2000

    1,645

    4,143

    6,753

    18,105

    2001

    2,151

    4,019

    10,811

    23,313

    2002

    2,304

    4,236

    11,241

    25,197

    Note:

    2002 data is provisional and subject to amendment

    Source:

    HM Customs and Excise

    Data prepared by Statistics (Commodities & Food) Accounts and Trade, ESD, DEFRA

    Waste Management
    Mr. Battle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the operator pollution risk appraisal score of each of the licensed(a) waste disposal and (b) landfill sites in (i) the Leeds Metropolitan District area and (ii) the Yorkshire and Humberside area was in each year since 1990. [116205]
    299W
    Mr. Morley
    The Environment Agency has supplied the relevant data which will be placed in the House Library.

    Bob Russell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on progress(a) since February 2002 towards

    Target

    2000–01

    2001–02

    Recycle or compost 17 per cent. of household waste by 2003–04

    11.2 per cent. (Municipal waste 12.3 per cent.)

    12.4 per cent. (Municipal waste 13.5 per cent.)

    By 2005 to reduce the amount of industrial and commercial waste sent to landfill to 85 per cent. of that landfilled in 1998;

    Provisional EA data suggests that was a reduction of 8 per cent. between 1998–99—2000–01 in the amount of waste sent to licensed landfill sites. This means that we are at 92 per cent. of 1998 levels, and are hopeful that we will meet this target. The Environment Agency will be conducting the next Industrial and Commercial Waste Survey this year.

    To recover value from 40 per cent. of municipal waste by 2005

    —

    22.3 per cent.

    Reduce biodegradable waste landfilled to 75 per cent. of that produced in 1995, by 2010 (with derogation)

    It is estimated that we landfilled 93 per cent. of biodegradable waste produced in 1995, in 2000–01

    No current figures available

    Since the Waste Summit in 2001, the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit has produced its report. "Waste Not, Want Not". This looks at how our progress in reducing our reliance on landfill and moving towards more sustainable waste management might be speeded up.

    The Government published their response on 6 May. In the response, the Government accept the majority of the recommendations and support the direction or intent of many of the others. The Government have already acted on a number of recommendations. A package of measures is now being taken forward:

    Landfill Tax will be increased by £3 per tonne in 2005–06 and by at least £3 per tonne in the years thereafter, on the way to a medium to long-term rate of £35 per tonne.

    The Landfill Tax Credit Scheme has been reformed and a proportion of the funding—£84/£92/£92 million—has been re-directed to a new Sustainable Waste Management Programme in England in 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2005–06;

    The new Waste Implementation Programme (WIP) run by Defra will concentrate on improving waste minimisation, recycling and composting, and researching new technologies for dealing with those wastes which are not readily reduced, reused or recycled. A Local Authority Delivery Taskforce will assist local authorities to meet their recycling and composting targets.

    A new Delivery Team and Steering Group is being established in Defra to drive forward implementation of the Government's response to the Strategy report and new programmes of work in Defra and WRAP;

    Local authority funding of £90 million each year for 2004–05 and 2005–06 has been provided for the Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund or its successor Performance Reward Fund.
    300W
    meeting the targets of the Government's Waste Management Strategy of 2000 and (b) since the Waste Summit. [117388]

    Mr. Morley
    The information is as follows:

    The Waste and Emissions Trading Bill includes provisions to allow waste disposal authorities to direct waste collection authorities to collect separated waste. It will soon include measures to promote more strategic waste planning at a local level in two tier authorities.

    A review of the health and environmental effects of waste management and disposal options has been commissioned. This work is well under way.

    There will be a review of the planning guidelines for waste management, Planning Policy Guidance 10. The Government recognise that there will be an increasing need for waste management facilities to deal with our waste, in particular, for recycling. The review will aim to improve the guidance and help local authorities to make timely and appropriate decisions. Expansion of WRAP will take forward a number of waste minimisation schemes:
    Home composting scheme—increase the number of households carrying out home composting and promote the effectiveness of composting carried out.
    Reusable nappies scheme—promoting the use of reusable nappies.
    Retailer initiative—with top retailers, aiming to reduce the amount of waste entering the waste stream from supermarket purchased products.
    Innovation fund—aimed at identifying and developing innovative approaches to waste minimisation.
    Kerbside task force—the Recycling and Organics Technical Advisory Team (ROTATE) to work with local authorities to help maximise the potential of kerbside collections, particularly biodegradable organics.
    National education and awareness programme—raising the general public's awareness of waste issues and the benefits of recycling,
    Local education and awareness programme—to support the ROTATE and waste minimisation initiatives outlined above.
    Government estimate that new WIP measures alone will contribute substantially to recycling and composting rates, cumulating to an estimated overall impact of 21 per cent. by 2005–06 and bring us much closer to our targets.

  EDUCATION AND SKILLS

    Academy for Gifted and Talented Children
    Mr. Damian Green
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of pupils accepted for courses at the Academy for Gifted and Talented Children in 2003 come from the maintained sector. [118699]

    Mr. Miliband
    80 per cent. of applications so far received for the Academy's 2003 summer schools are from the maintained sector; the remainder are either from home-educated students or from the independent sector.

    Arson
    Mr. Damian Green
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total cost was of damage to school premises from malicious fires in each year since 1997(a) in England and (b) by LEA. [119433]

    Mr. Miliband
    The Department does not collect these figures.

    Mr. Damian Green
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what targets his Department has set in relation to malicious fires on school premises. [119436]

    Mr. Miliband
    The Department does not set targets for malicious fires, but we take very seriously the threat that arson poses to some schools. If a fire should happen in a school, the Department's primary concern is for the safety of pupils, teachers and other users. Regulation 17 of the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1999 requires that every part of a school building, and of the land provided for a school, shall be such that the safe escape of the occupants in case of fire is reasonably assured. Schools are also covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and by subsequent related regulations. These include aspects of fire safety.

    To help schools manage fire safety, The Department published Managing School Facilities Guide 6, Fire Safety, in 2000. This offers guidance on how to minimise the risks of both accidental and malicious fires occurring, and advises on how to identify hazards and carry out risk assessments. It also gives advice on training and on fire detection and alarm systems.

    In addition, officials from the Department sit on the Arson in Schools Working Group, a group of experts representing the insurance industry, the fire and police services, local authorities and government departments. The Group exists to research and promote ways of reducing malicious fires in schools. One of its outputs

    (a)

    (b)

    (c)

    (d)

    (e)

    (f)

    Private sector partners

    Opening dates

    Number of pupils and age range

    Capital costs from the public purse (£million)

    Revenue Funding 2003–04 (£ thousand)

    Barnet

    Peter Shalson

    2004

    1,425 11–18

    22

    1 900

    Bexley

    Sir David Garrard

    2002

    1,400 11–18

    25.75

    4,232,598

    Bradford

    To he confirmed

    2005

    2,000 11–18

    2 19.5

    1 250

    Brent

    Sir Frank Lowe John Laycock, University of the

    2003

    1,200 11–18

    21.4

    4,419,823

    Bristol

    West of England and others Lord Harris of Peckham and the

    2003

    1,236 11–18

    21.87

    5,437,152

    Croydon

    Whitgift Foundation

    2005/06

    1,300 11–18

    17.87

    1 250

    302W
    has been the publication of the guide "How to Combat Arson in Schools", copies of which have been sent to all schools in the UK.

    Capital Allocation, Kent
    Mr. Fallon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how he intends to ensure that schools in Kent can make rapid use of the devolved capital allocation announced on 15 May. [119546]

    Mr. Miliband
    On 15 May, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that in response to exceptional pressures this year on some school budgets he has decided to help schools manage their budgets by allowing them. in discussion with their local education authorities, to use their devolved capital funding to support their day-to-day running costs. This is to be for this year only and must be a decision taken by the school with the agreement of the local education authority only where there is a clear case that failing to do so would lead to excessive instability within the school.

    On 16 May, my Department made detailed guidance available to schools and to local education authorities, to enable them immediately to discuss locally where thus capital flexibility can be used. My Department is not included in these discussions, but we expect later this summer to ask all authorities of the extent to which this flexibility has been used.

    City Academies
    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list each site for which his Department has considered a city academy, indicating for each(a) the LEA, (b) the names of private sector partners, (c) what dates have been agreed for an opening date, (d) the expected number of pupils, and their age range, (e) the contribution to capital costs from the public purse and (f) the estimated revenue funding per project. [119580]

    Mr. Miliband
    [holding answer 16 June 2003]: The table sets out the information available. Academy projects receive modest funding to develop proposals to a point where we are satisfied that the plans are viable and a funding agreement can be signed. From this point, projects receive additional funding to implement their proposals and prepare for opening.

    Once open, Academies receive an operational budget to cover their day-to-day running costs, which is comparable to the level of funding for similar maintained schools within their local authority areas. The level of capital funding is intended to ensure that Academies are built and equipped to a standard comparable with the best in the maintained sector.
    303W

    (a)

    (b)

    (c)

    (d)

    (e)

    (f)

    Private sector partners

    Opening dates

    Number of pupils and age range

    Capital costs from the public purse (£million)

    Revenue Funding 2003–04 (£ thousand)

    Doncaster

    The Vardy Foundation

    2005

    1,470 11–18

    219.5

    1 250

    Ealing

    Alec Reed

    2003

    1,200 11–18

    27.53

    4,644,164

    Greenwich

    Archdiocese of Southwark

    2004

    1200 11–16

    2 23.5

    1 900

    Hackney

    Clive Bourne

    2004

    900 11–16

    20.5

    1 900

    Hackney

    —3

    2006

    3— 11–16

    2 21.5

    1 250

    Church of England and the Greig

    Haringey

    Trust

    2003

    1,200 11–18

    11

    3,966,945

    Hillingdon

    Barry Townsley and others

    2004

    1,250 11–18

    19

    1 900

    Hillingdon

    Watford Football Club

    2005

    1,000 11–19

    2 23.5

    1 250

    Kensington & Chelsea

    Martyn Arbib

    2005/6

    1,150 11–18

    2 23.5

    1 250

    Kent

    Roger DeHaan

    2005

    1,180 11–18

    2 19.5

    1 250

    The Saga Group and Kings

    Kent

    School Canterbury

    2006

    1,480 11–18

    2 19.5

    1 250

    Lambeth

    United Learning Trust

    2004

    1,200 11–18

    22.28

    1 900

    The Church of England and

    Leeds

    Intercity Group

    2006

    1,170 11–18

    2 19.5

    1 250

    The De La Salle Brothers and

    Lewisham

    Archdiocese of Southwark

    2005

    1,260 11–16

    2 23.5

    1 250

    The Haberdashers' Livery

    Lewisham

    Company

    2005

    1,550 11–18

    2 23.5

    1 250

    The University of Liverpool and

    Liverpool

    others

    2005

    1,650 11–18

    2 23

    1 250

    The Diocese and Archdiocese of

    Liverpool

    Liverpool

    2005

    900 11–16

    18.9

    1 900

    United Learning Trust and

    Manchester

    Manchester Science Park

    2003

    900 11–16

    10.62

    3,498,929

    Middlesbrough

    Amey plc

    2002

    1,200 11–16

    18.59

    5,381,861

    Middlesbrough

    The Vardy Foundation

    2003

    1,250 11–18

    19.2

    5,744,508

    Northampton

    United Learning Trust

    2004

    1,420 11–18

    18.7

    1 900

    Nottingham

    Sir Harry Djanogly

    2003

    1,620 11–18

    18.61

    7,153,347

    The Mercers Company and

    Sandwell

    Thomas Telford Online

    2005/06

    1,200 11–18

    16.5

    1 900

    Solihull

    I M Group

    2005

    1,350 11–18

    2 19.5

    1 250

    Southwark

    The Corporation of London

    2003

    1,200 11–18

    27.2

    1,788,246

    Southwark

    Lord Harris of Peokham

    2003

    1,450 11–18

    19.97

    5,998,577

    The Mercers Company and

    Walsall

    Thomas Telford Online

    2003

    1,200 11–18

    15.5

    2,927,266

    Westminster

    Chelsfield plc

    2006

    1175 11–18

    2 23.5

    1 250

    Westminster

    United Learning Trust

    2006

    1,175 11–18

    2 23.5

    1 250

    1 Estimated figures for revenue funding include feasibility and implementation funding. These are the total amounts of such funding for which projects are eligible during the relevant phases. Actual expenditure in any given year will depend on the progress of the project.

    2 Estimated figures, subject to change, and will be finalised when the projects are in a position to sign a funding agreement with the Secretary of State.

    3 To be confirmed

    Note:

    Revenue figures for 2003–04 for the three open Academies and the nine Academies due to open in September 2003 include implementation and start-up grant, as appropriate, in addition to the General Annual Grant payable to meet their normal running costs.

    Criminal Records Bureau
    Bob Spink
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make it his policy to recompense schools for the additional costs of searches through the Criminal Records Bureau. [118753]

    Mr. Miliband
    The cost of Criminal Records Bureau Disclosures falls to individuals. Schools which choose to pay for Disclosures on behalf of staff are expected to meet the cost from within their existing budgets. My Department is contributing £7.4 million towards the Bureau's costs in 2003–04.

    Mr. Damian Green
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what total costs schools have incurred since September 2002 as a result of the Criminal Records Bureau checks. [119431]

    Mr. Miliband
    The cost of CRB checks falls to individuals: schools which decide to pay their fee are expected to meet this cost from within their existing budgets. I am not able to provide information on the 304W
    costs involved as my Department does not hold information on the number of checks which have been carried out on school-based staff.

    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the cost to(a) schools and (b) his Department of funding Criminal Records Bureau checks in (i) 2002 and (ii) 2003. [118134]

    Mr. Miliband
    My Department is not able to estimate the cost to schools of funding CRB checks as we do not hold information on the number of CRB checks which schools have applied for. The cost of applications falls to individuals: schools which decide to pay their fee are expected to meet this cost from within their existing budgets. My Department contributed £4.2 million towards the CRB's costs in 2002–03 and will contribute a further £7.4 million in 2003–04.

    Departmental Website
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what actions he has taken or is taking to
    305W
    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. [117353]

    Mr. Stephen Twigg
    The Department for Education and Skills website has been designed in accordance with UK government accessibility guidelines for web design, incorporating guidance from the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), the accessibility initiative of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), the standards and development body for the web. The site design has also been validated using "Bobby"; an industry standard web-based accessibility tool that analyses web pages for their accessibility to people with disabilities.

    The Department has also ensured that non-departmental public bodies are aware of UK government web standards and has issued supplementary guidance for these bodies.

    Beacon Schools
    Mr. Damian Green
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the beacon schools which have not been accepted as leading edge schools. [118700]

    Mr. Miliband
    We will shortly be making an announcement of the schools that have been successful in this round of the Leading Edge Programme. At that stage we will provide a list of schools—including Beacon Schools—that applied but were unsuccessful.

    Mr. Gibb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the structural distinction between the Leading Practice programme and the Beacon school initiative. [117173]

    Mr. Miliband
    The Leading Edge Programme is specific to secondary schools and builds on the success of the Beacon Schools initiative to encourage an accelerated pace of change and improvement. The LEA puts significantly more emphasis on active local collaboration to spread excellence.

    In primary, the 'Leading Practice' programme, described in the recent primary strategy document `Excellence and Enjoyment', will also build on successful practice developed through the beacon programme. We intend to develop a 'Leading Practice' programme with common national criteria and branding. It will be focussed on identifying outstanding work in particular areas, within schools that are performing well across the board. The LEA will have a role in working with 'leading practice' schools to ensure they contribute to local networking arrangements so that excellent practice is spread widely.

    Education Funding
    Gregory Barker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was made available to East Sussex local education authority under the Standards Fund in each year since 1997. [117634]

    Mr. Miliband
    The following table shows the Standards Fund grant for East Sussex since 1997.
    306W
    The figures include Government grant only, they do not include local authority contributions to the Standards Fund.

    Standards Fund grant allocated to East Sussex

    £ million

    Year

    Recurrent Grant

    Capital Grant

    Total Standards

    Education Standards Spending Assessment

    1997–98

    1.7

    0.1

    1.8

    151.3

    1998–99

    2.2

    1.4

    3.6

    164.7

    1999–2000

    6.8

    1.1

    6.9

    174.3

    2000–01

    9.6

    4.2

    13.8

    185.3

    2001–02

    11.3

    6.8

    18.1

    196.0

    2002–03

    12.3

    10.9

    23.2

    199.0

    2003–04

    9.6

    10.6

    20.2

    1 224.0

    Education Formula Funding Share (EFSS). This includes the transfer of Class Size grant and Nursery Education Grant. The equivalent figure on the same basis for 2002–03 would be £210.4 million.

    The recurrent grant figure for 2002–03 includes class size grant of £0.95 million. The funding for class size grant is distributed via the Education Formula Spending Shares (EFSS) in 2003–04. On a like for like basis East Sussex has received an increase in EFSS per pupil of 3.2 per cent. on a like for like basis.

    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when education maintenance allowance will be available to Gloucestershire. [117674]

    Alan Johnson
    The national Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) scheme will be available from September 2004 across the whole of England to those students who complete their compulsory education in the 2003–04 academic year.

    Ethnic/Cultural Diversity
    Nick Harvey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent steps his Department has taken to educate(a) primary and (b) secondary school students in (i) ethnicity and (ii) cultural diversity in Britain. [119141]

    Mr. Stephen Twigg
    Understanding the origins and implications of the diverse ethnic, cultural, national, regional and religious identities in the United Kingdom is an important part of Citizenship education. Citizenship education is part of the Personal, Social and Health Education framework for primary schools and became part of the statutory National Curriculum for 11–16 year olds in September 2002. Pupils are taught from an early age to respect the differences between people, to appreciate other's feelings and points of view, to recognise the effects of stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination of any kind and to develop the skills to challenge them assertively. Guidance from QCA on how to deliver these aspects of the National curriculum was sent to all schools in 2002.

    Examination Markers
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent discussions he has had with organisations responsible for employing A level markers; what assessment he has made of whether they
    307W
    are employing sufficient numbers, and of the quality needed, to carry out the job; and if he will make a statement. [118653]

    Mr. Miliband
    Ministers and officials stay in touch with the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) on examination matters. We have made available an additional £6 million this year which is funding a number of initiatives from awarding bodies to help ensure that sufficient markers are recruited.

    The Chief Executive of QCA has reported, publicly, that the exam boards are in a better position than last year on marker recruitment.

    Further Education
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many targets and milestones are prescribed as part of the Government's FE strategy, Success for All. [117673]

    Alan Johnson
    Success for All contributes to several of the Department's PSA targets and is being delivered through a three-year development plan agreed by the Learning and Skills Council with each provider. These plans specify four improvement targets with milestones for each year. The targets are for learner numbers, learner success rates, employer engagement, and the proportion of teachers, lecturers and trainers with professional qualifications. The target for learner numbers will be split for adults and young people and the target for learner success rates split into long and short qualifications.

    Higher Education
    Mr. Simon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action he is taking to ensure universities and colleges are collaborating effectively with schools in order to cultivate among disadvantaged children the aspiration to enter higher education. [112997]

    Alan Johnson
    The Aimhigher programme supports a wide range of activity involving collaborative working between schools, colleges and higher education institutions in order to increase the educational attainment and aspirations of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. Activities can include university tasters such as summer schools, mentoring, support for teachers, master classes and many more. Much of the activity is aimed at getting year 11 pupils to stay on in education and get better grades so that they can aim higher. The Aimhigher publicity campaign provides clearer information and better marketing of the route to HE for young people with a particular focus on reaching families and communities who do not have a tradition of entering HE, raising expectations of students and teachers alike. Any university wishing to introduce higher fees from 2006 must first have an access agreement, approved by the Office for Fair Access, and outreach with schools and colleges will be one of the essential elements of such an agreement.

    Dr. Kumar
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to increase awareness of further and higher education opportunities amongst under-represented groups. [118147]
    308W
    Alan Johnson
    The Government are committed to widening participation in Further Education (FE) and Higher Education (HE). In FE, the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) has a clear remit to raise and widen participation in education and training. The LSC's "Successful Participation for All: Widening Adult Participation Strategy" was launched for consultation in February of this year. The LSC will publish its resultant Widening Participation Strategy in the autumn. This is likely to consider widening participation targets, funding and prospects for future growth in FE and training.

    Our plans for HE are set out in "The Future of Higher Education" (Cm 5735) with more detail given in "Widening Participation in Higher Education" (DfES/0301/2003). The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) published its plans in March in "Funding for Widening Participation in England". HEFCE is spending £285 million on widening participation in 2003–04. In addition, the DfES's Aimhigher Programme is aimed at raising levels of awareness and aspiration towards HE of young people in more disadvantaged parts of the country. We are spending £62 million in 2003–04 on this Programme.

    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what additional financial assistance he intends to give to universities to enable them to provide(a) outreach work with schools and colleges and (b) bursaries and other financial support as described in Widening Participation in Higher Education. [118393]

    Alan Johnson
    The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) intends to make available £285 million in 2003–04 for widening participation activities. This compares with £55 million last year. In addition, the Department is also providing £62 million in 2003–04 for widening participation to partnerships of schools, colleges and universities through Aimhigher, compared to £35 million in 2002–03. A further £5 million is being made available in 2003–04 for the Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth based at the University of Warwick, and £2.5 million is available to support development of foundation degrees.

    With respect to bursaries for young people, are expanding Opportunity Bursaries so that grants to the sum of £18.5 million will be available in 2003–04, compared to £11.5 million last year. The level of hardship funding is likely to be around the same in 2003–4 at £96 million.

    In addition, from September 2003, a new Parents Learning Allowance will be paid directly to student parents on low income. From September 2004, a new Higher Education Grant of £1,000 per year will be paid directly to poorer students. Details of eligibility to this grant will be published in due course. The Department is also planning to make available assistance to students studying Foundation Degrees. Details will be announced later in the year.

    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the amount spent in 2002–03 by universities on(a) outreach work with schools and colleges to help

    309W
    raise the level of attainment, aspirations and applications and (b) bursaries and other financial support. [118394]

    Alan Johnson
    The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) allocated to universities and colleges a total of £55 million for the financial year 2002–03 for outreach work. A further £35 million was spent by Excellence Challenge partnerships which comprise schools, colleges and higher education institutions. £96m was made available for higher education institutions to use to provide bursaries and other financial support for students. The Department has no information on the additional amounts spent by institutions from their own funds.

    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to what extent his decisions on the charging of tuition fees by universities will be determined by his assessment of their admission arrangements under the proposals set out in Widening Participation in Higher Education. [118395]

    Alan Johnson
    Under the proposals in "Widening participation in higher education", institutions that wish to charge variable fees in excess of the standard fee (currently £1,100) for any of their courses will be required to enter into an access agreement with Office for Fair Access (OFFA). The agreement will cover a 5-year period, though there will be some flexibility for the institution to modify its arrangements during that period. An individual university's admissions policies and procedures will be outside the remit of the access agreement and OFFA.

    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to create teaching-only universities; and if he will make a statement on(a) the value of combined teaching and research departments and (b) how this link will be preserved. [119620]

    Alan Johnson
    As set out in the White Paper "The Future of Higher Education" (Cmnd 5735), the Government's vision for higher education is one in which each institution plays to its individual strengths. We expect all universities to excel in teaching but also have strengths in one or more of the following areas: research; knowledge transfer; and linkages with the local and regional economy.

    In order to acknowledge that teaching is, in itself, a core mission for a university we propose to change the criteria for university title so that it is awarded on the basis of taught degree awarding powers, up to masters level, and student numbers.

    Evidence available to the Department suggests that effective teaching requires academic staff to engage in high quality scholarship rather than undertaking research activity themselves. For that reason, new requirements about scholarship have been included in the proposed revised criteria for degree awarding powers and university title.

    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to attract prospective entrants into the higher education profession; and what measures are in place to address staff shortages. [119623]
    310W
    Alan Johnson
    While the recruitment of staff is the responsibility of higher education institutions, the Government is concerned that higher education institutions should be able to recruit, retain and reward the high quality staff they need. That is why we announced in the White Paper that spending on higher education in England will rise from a total of £7.5 billion in 2002–03 to almost £10 billion in 2005–06. In the 3 years between 2001–02 and 2003–04, we have allocated £330 million specifically to help with the recruitment, retention and reward of all staff and, in particular, to value and reward good teachers. We have also pledged £50 million in 2004–05 and £117 million in 2005–06 for this purpose. From August 2003, we will be introducing "golden hellos" for 1,000 new lecturers in shortage subjects each year.

    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the number and outcome of regional consultation workshops held in connection with the White Paper on the Future of Higher Education (Cm 5735); and what further consultation exercises are planned. [119789]

    Alan Johnson
    We held 8 regional consultation events in connection with the White Paper during April and May 2003, attended by around 800 delegates from all interested parties in the higher education sector.

    We intend to present the outcomes from these and the written consultation exercise, at the same time as we respond to the Report of the Select Committee for Higher Education. A number of consultation exercises will be undertaken by the Department and the Higher Education Funding Council for England in the coming months on specific areas of policy related to implementing the commitments made in the White Paper.

    Mr. Rendel
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the additional resources required in each year between 2003 and 2010 in order to meet the Government's 50 per cent.participation target, broken down to show(a) the increase in the direct grant to universities and (b) additional funding to improve recruitment and retention. [119959]

    Alan Johnson
    [hulling answer 17 June 2003]: The funding for higher education to 2005–06 was set out in "The Future of higher education" Cmd 5735, and in the annual grant letter to the Higher Education Funding Council for England. Assessments of the costs for increasing and widening participation beyond 2005–06 will be made as part of the 2004 Spending Review, work on which will commence shortly.

    Higher Education (Selby)
    Mr. Grogan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people from each ward in Selby district received higher education in each year since 1997. [109014]

    Alan Johnson
    Figures for the number of people who go on to higher education are not collated centrally on a ward or constituency basis. The closest available information, as given in the table, shows the number
    311W
    of students from North Yorkshire local education authority who were enrolled on higher education courses in UK HE institutions.

    Students from North Yorkshire Local Education Authority on HE courses1

    Academic Year

    Students

    1996–97

    16,400

    1997–98

    16,100

    1998–99

    18,400

    1999–2000

    16,100

    2000–01

    16,500

    2001–02

    17,000

    1 Covers full-time and part-time students on both postgraduate and undergraduate courses. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest hundred.

    Source:

    Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA)

    Independent Schools
    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what account will be taken of the position of children from lower income families in receipt of scholarships or bursaries at independent schools under his proposals set out in 'Widening participation in higher education'. [118396]

    Alan Johnson
    Paragraph one of Section four of "Widening participation in higher education" sets out a range of proposals which will help students from lower income families.

    Leadership Incentive Grant
    Mr. Cameron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) selective, (b) grammar and (c) independent schools have received funding under the Leadership Incentive Grant; and if he will make a statement. [119239]

    Mr. Miliband
    1402 mainstream secondary schools are eligible for the new Leadership Incentive Grant which began in April. Twenty nine of these are grammar schools which select wholly or mainly by ability. Independent schools are not eligible for the Grant.

    One of the primary aims of the Leadership Incentive Grant is to stimulate and embed collaborative working to improve standards of teaching and learning amongst local groups of schools. As part of the initiative, schools are required to invest significant resources in working collaboratively. Groups of schools have developed collaborative plans which set out shared priorities for action. Collaborative plans are based upon a rigorous self and peer review of individual schools' strengths and weaknesses, identifying capacity which can be shared to raise standards across the community of schools.

    Leading Edge Schools
    Mr. Cameron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools in counties in the South East of England have received funding as Leading Edge Schools; and if he will make a statement. [119232]
    312W
    Mr. Miliband
    We will shortly be making an announcement of the schools that have been successful in this round of the Leading Edge Programme, at which stage a full list of schools that have been successful will be available.

    Maintained Schools
    Mr. Brady
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for what reasons it is his policy that maintained schools must use a different external adviser each year in carrying out the performance review of the head teacher; and under what statute this power to direct is derived. [119168]

    Mr. Miliband
    [holding answer 13 June 2003]: Maintained schools are not obliged to use a different external adviser each year. Our current guidance to schools is that the same accredited external adviser may advise the governing body in carrying out the performance review of their headteacher up to three times.

    Ministerial Visits
    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list official ministerial visits made to schools, broken down by date, school and minister, since 2001. [118123]

    Mr. Stephen Twigg
    The information requested has been placed in the Library.

    Nanotechnology
    Mr. Gardiner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether his Department has examined the extent to which nanotechnology should be part of the science national curriculum. [117009]

    Alan Johnson
    While nanotechnology is not specified in the statutory National Curriculum, there is potential in the National Curriculum for science teachers to explore some of the scientific aspects of nanotechnology with their students. At Key Stage 4, students learn about making and changing molecules, which is a precursor to understanding nanotechnology. The QCA are currently consulting on changes to the programme of study for science Key Stage 4, following their recent review. The new science GCSE, Science in 21st Century, which is being piloted from September 2003 includes emphasis on students' understanding of the ethical issues surrounding potential applications of controversial new scientific technologies. The Applied Science GCSE, introduced in September 2002, provides an opportunity for young people to study for a science qualification which focuses on vocationally-related aspects of science.

    There is also potential for the social implications and ethical aspects of new scientific technologies such as nanotechnology and genetic engineering to be covered in Citizenship, introduced in the National Curriculum in secondary schools in September 2002.

    Official Spelling
    Bob Russell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make it his policy that all official
    313W
    (a) correspondence, (b) reports and (c) documentation from his office uses the English spelling of words where this differs from the US version. [118862]

    Mr. Stephen Twigg
    I can confirm it is this Department's policy to use the English spelling of words in preference to the US version and to write all correspondence in plain English. Departmental publications are prepared in line with Guidance on the Work of the Government Information and Communication Service.

    Pay Rates (Non-teaching Staff)
    Mr. Cameron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent discussions ministers have had with UNISON about the appropriate rates of pay for non-teaching staff in schools; and if he will make a statement. [119238]

    Mr. Miliband
    I have met support staff unions on a number of occasions in recent months. Meetings have focused in particular on monitoring the implementation of the National Agreement on Raising Standards and Tackling Workload, which was signed by government, the local authority employers and school workforce unions on 15 January this year.

    The government's position remains that the terms and conditions of employment of school support staff are best determined locally, in light of local needs and circumstances. The National Agreement will improve training and career progression opportunities for support staff and makes clear that we expect their pay to reflect their level of training, skills and responsibilities.

    Public-Private Partnerships
    Mr. Streeter
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of PPP contracts for educational provision in England in the past 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [115949]

    Mr. Miliband
    Contracts with private sector providers for education provision are for the most part the responsibility of local education authorities, who assess their effectiveness as part of the contract management process. Ofsted has in the past 12 months inspected seven authorities which had contracted out significant education functions at the time of the inspection, or previously had entered into short-term management support contracts as part of an intervention solution. In all cases, performance had improved by at least one grade since the previous inspection. The recently published Indepen/Bannock Consulting Evaluation of new ways of working in LEAs studied three cases where education provision or senior management had been contracted out. In all three cases, they concluded that the arrangements were organisationally robust, had already or promised well to improve performance, represented value for money, and were likely to be sustainable and replicable.

    PPP contracts have also been used for three schools in Surrey. These are the responsibility of Surrey Education Authority who let the contracts and it is for the LEA to assess the effectiveness of the contracts.

    Pupil Numbers
    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list, by LEA, the future estimates his Department has made of(a) primary and (b) secondary school pupil numbers. [118768]

    Mr. Miliband
    This information is available only at national level.

    Projected pupil numbers for England as a whole

    000s1

    At January

    Maintained primary schools

    Maintained secondary schools

    20022

    4,214

    3,264

    20033

    4,167

    3,308

    20044

    4,099

    3,334

    20055

    4,048

    3,325

    1 Full-time equivalents, counting each part-time pupil as 0.5.

    2 Actual

    3 Provisional

    4 Projected

    Qualifications and Curriculum Authority
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the relationship between the Government and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority; what plans he has to change it; and if he will make a statement. [118104]

    Mr. Miliband
    The Government work closely with QCA. My right hon. Friend and I meet Sir Anthony Greener and Dr. Ken Boston, the Chair and Chief Executive of QCA, regularly on a wide range of issues. Regular meetings also take place between officials. I am satisfied that the arrangements in place secure the right framework of accountability while ensuring that the QCA is properly independent in its setting of examination and testing standards.

    A Memorandum of Understanding which describes the relationship between the Department and QCA has been agreed and made available on the QCA website. I am placing a copy in the Library. We will continue to keep the relationship under review.

    Rural Affairs
    Andrew George
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps are being taken in urban-based schools(a) lessons and (b) activities to encourage greater awareness of (i) rural and (ii) countryside issues. [119151]

    Mr. Miliband
    Growing Schools, launched in September 2001, seeks to tackle concerns that young people have become distanced from the natural environment and know little about food, farming, agriculture or the countryside. We are working with a number of partners to encourage schools to use the `outdoor classroom' as a resource across the curriculum. We want all pupils, in both rural and urban communities to have opportunities to gain knowledge and understanding of rural and countryside issues through first hand experience.

    Rural Schools
    Mr. Peter Duncan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many rural small schools have closed in England in each year since 1997. [119343]

    Mr. Miliband
    The Department does not have reliable data on the number of rural school closures for individual years before 1998. Following the introduction of the presumption against closure in 1998, the number of rural small schools approved for closure is as follows:

    1998

    5

    1999

    2

    2000

    2

    2001

    3

    2002

    3

    2003

    3

    The Department defines a small primary school as one with fewer than 200 pupils and a small secondary school as one with fewer than 600 pupils.

    Cost of producing school and college performance data 2002

    £ million

    Data

    Cost

    (a) Primary school performance tables of achievements in Key Stage 2 tests

    0.9

    (b) Secondary school performance tables of achievements in Key Stage 3 tests

    n/a

    (c) Secondary school performance tables of achievements in GCSE examinations and vocational qualifications

    1.98

    (d) School and college performance tattles of achievements in A/AS examinations and vocational qualifications

    n/a

    (e) Pilot tables testing the calculation and presentation of a Key Stage 2-GCSE/GNVQ value added measure

    0.15

    (f) Tables testing the reporting of achievements in all approved qualifications at age 16

    n/a

    Notes:

    1. The figures shown above are programme costs and do not include departmental staff costs.

    2. The secondary school performance tables of achievements in Key Stage 3 tests were published alongside the secondary school performance tables of achievements in GCSE examinations and vocational qualifications.

    3. The secondary school performance tables of achievements in GCSE examinations and vocational qualifications and the school and college performance tables of achievements in A/AS examinations and vocational qualifications are managed as one exercise so there are no separate costings.

    4. The tables testing the reporting of achievements in all approved qualifications at age 16 will be piloted in 2003.

    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total cost of producing school and college performance tables was in 2003, including(a) data collection and analysis, (b) production, (c) publication and (d) distribution. [117874]

    Mr. Miliband
    [holding answer 9 June 2003]: The breakdown of the cost of producing the most recent (2002) school and college performance data is as follows:

    Breakdown of cost of producing school and college performance data 2002

    £ million

    Data

    Cost

    Data collection and analysis

    0.8

    Production

    12.05

    Publication

    0.09

    Distribution

    0.09

    1This figure was higher in 2002 because of the need to carry out additional confirmations of results.

    Notes:

    1. The figures shown above are programme costs and do not include departmental staff costs.

    School League Tables
    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total cost was of producing and publishing the most recent(a) primary school performance tables of achievements in Key Stage 2 tests, (b) secondary school performance tables of achievements in Key Stage 3 tests, (c) secondary school performance tables of achievements in GCSE examinations and vocational qualifications, (d) school and college performance tables of achievements in A/AS examinations and vocational qualifications, (e) pilot tables testing the calculation and presentation of a Key Stage 2-GCSE/GNVQ value added measure and (f) pilot tables testing the reporting of achievements in all approved qualifications at age 16. [117849]

    Mr. Miliband
    The cost of producing the most recent (2002) school and college performance data is as follows:

    2. The data for the primary tables were checked and compiled by the Department then published by LEAs on 5 December 2002. The Department makes the data available on their website but hard copies of the booklets are available from individual LEAs. 3. The Department published the 2002 secondary school performance tables on 23 January 2003 and the 2002 post 16 tables on 3 April 2003. Distribution costs have been radically reduced since 2001 with the introduction of print on demand. We no longer print and distribute bulk copies but still ensure all schools and local libraries receive one copy of the tables for information purposes.

    School Funding (Essex)
    Bob Spink
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many schools in Essex are running a deficit budget; [118751]

    (2) if he will list the schools in Castle Point that are running a deficit budget, and the size of the deficit in each case. [118752]

    Mr. Miliband
    The latest outturn statement published by Essex Local Education Authority shows that 21 schools ended the financial year 2001–02 with a deficit balance. Of these, two schools were in the Castle Point constituency: Leigh Beck Infant School and Nursery (— £6,915) and The Cornelius Vermuyden School (— £1,633).
    317W
    Figures for the year ending 31 March 2003 are due to be published by authorities by 9 October 2003.

    School Governors
    Bob Russell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was paid in attendance allowances to members of school governing bodies in England and Wales in each of the last 10 municipal years; and how much he estimates will be allocated in the current municipal year. [118746]

    Mr. Miliband
    Although Governing Bodies have the power to set up schemes to pay governors for any expenditure necessarily incurred to enable them to carry out their governor duties, there is no provision to pay attendance allowances.

    School Workforce Agreement
    Gregory Barker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the projected cost of implementing the National Agreement on Restructuring the School Workforce is. [117639]

    Mr. Miliband
    The costs will vary from school to school, depending on how much progress they have already made on the various elements of workforce reform. Delivering the changes is as much about different ways of working as it is about additional resources. Many schools will be able to implement the September 2003 changes from their existing budgets.

    The phasing of the contractual changes means that the more radical provisions do not come into force until September 2005. We are working to ensure that the delivery of the Agreement will be sustainable, as we consider changes to the funding system for 2004–05 and beyond.

    Schools Finance (Cornwall)
    Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools in Cornwall have a budget deficit; and what the size of the deficit is in each case. [119391]

    Mr. Miliband
    Information on the number of maintained schools in Cornwall carrying forward deficits at the end of the financial year 2002–03, and on the size of any deficits, will be contained in the outturn statement for 2002–03 which the local education authority is required to publish under section 52 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. The deadline for publication of these statements is not until October 2003.

    Somali Schoolchildren
    Jeremy Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his assessment is of the needs of Somali children in schools in each London borough; how many receive free school meals; and what proportion continue education beyond the age of 16. [117693]

    Mr. Miliband
    The requested information is not held centrally.
    318W
    As part of the Pupil Level Annual Schools Census (PLASC), schools are required to record ethnicity data to reflect the main categories used in the 2001 National Population Census. Children of Somali ethnic origin are recorded under the category of "Black African". In 2002, the Department carried out a consultation exercise with Local Education Authorities (LEAs) on a "key list" of extended ethnicity categories that included a separate "Somali" category. In 2003, for local reporting and monitoring purposes, LEAs were given the option of using the extended categories in their schools if they felt that the main categories did not meet their local management needs. However, not all LEAs chose to use extended categories and LEAs are required only to report to the DfES using the national categories. The Department does not therefore hold complete data for the extended ethnic background categories.

    Specialist Schools
    Mr. Gibb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 3 June 2003,Official Report, column 203W, on Excellence Schools, if he will place in the Library a copy of the full research published by the Department of Innovative Grouping Practices on flexible forms of pupil grouping. [119871]

    Mr. Miliband
    A copy has now been placed in the Library.

    Student Finance
    Mr. Marsden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much has been paid by students from(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire in higher education tuition fees in each year since 1997; and what the average amount paid was in each case. [119386]

    Alan Johnson
    My Department does not collect student support data at the constituency level. Student support data on the levels of contribution to tuition are collected from Local Education Authorities (LEAs) through a voluntary survey. However, the data are only robust enough to be published at the national level.

    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has for(a) a replacement graduate repayment scheme and (b) reintroduction of grants for disadvantaged students. [119621]

    Alan Johnson
    The White Paper "The Future of Higher Education" (Cm 5735) which was published in January 2003 sets out our plans for a Graduate Contribution Scheme in England. We plan to abolish up-front tuition fees from 2006/07 and to allow higher education institutions to charge variable fees, between £0 and £3000 per year per course. Institutions will only be able to charge higher fees if they have an access agreement approved by the Office for Fair Access. Graduates will repay their student loan through the Tax System, at a zero real rate of interest, once they are earning above the £15,000 repayment threshold. Monthly repayments will be linked to earnings.

    For those students from low income households starting full-time higher education from Autumn 2004, we will be introducing a new Higher Education Grant of up to £1,000.
    319W
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what consultation he has held with(a) the Year Out Group and (b) other organisations furthering gap year arrangements for students; and what action he will take to mitigate potential turbulence in numbers arising from the introduction of approved top-up fees from 2006–07. [1197911]

    Alan Johnson
    No formal consultation has taken place with these groups. However, there has been written correspondence between my hon. Friend the former Minister of Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education and Lifelong Learning and the Chief Executive of the Year Out Group, Sir Richard Oliver, as well as representatives of the Engineering Development Trust, the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Project Trust and Year In Industry. The Government does not intend to take any action to regulate student numbers in advance of the introduction of variable fees in 2006/07.

    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether he intends to provide that any approved top-up fees chargeable under the proposals in the Future of Higher Education (Cm 5735) should be fully covered by additional student loans. [119792]

    Alan Johnson
    The White Paper "The Future of Higher Education" (Cm 5735) which was published in January 2003 sets out our plans for a Graduate Contribution Scheme in England. We plan to abolish up-front tuition fees from 2006/07 and to allow higher education institutions to charge variable fees, between £0 and £3000 per year per course. Institutions will only be able to raise their fees if they have an access agreement approved by the Office for Fair Access. Student loans will be available to cover in full the variable fee so that every student will be able to defer payment of their fee until after their graduation, if they choose to do so. Graduates will repay the loan at a zero real rate of interest, with repayments linked to earnings, once they are earning above the £15,000 repayment threshold.

    Teacher Training
    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans his Department has to remit the(a) tuition fees and (b) top up fees of students undertaking undergraduate teacher training courses. [118119]

    Mr. Miliband
    Any changes to the existing support arrangements for students on courses of initial teacher training would be announced at the appropriate time.

    Teacher Vacancies
    Mr. Damian Green
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many vacant teacher posts there were in(a) primary schools, (b) secondary schools, (c) special schools and (d) all schools as a percentage of the total number of head teachers, in each year since 1997, broken down by local education authority. [110131]

    Mr. Miliband
    The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.
    320W

    Teachers
    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many successful completers of(a) undergraduate and (b) postgraduate teaching qualifications there were as a proportion of entrants and applicants in each year since 1990. [118121]

    Mr. Miliband
    Course length data for new entrants is not available for all years and so it is not possible to match completers, entrants and applicants to give a meaningful proportion of completers to entrants and applicants in each year.

    The data which is available is shown in the tables.

    Table 1: the number of applicants to undergraduate and postgraduate teacher training courses

    Undergraduate

    Postgraduate

    Total

    England and Wales

    1990–91

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1991–92

    1—

    24,870

    1—

    1992–93

    1—

    31,130

    1—

    1993–94

    1—

    33,650

    1—

    1994–95

    1—

    31,640

    1—

    1995–96

    1—

    33,250

    1—

    1996–97

    34,020

    33,240

    67,260

    1997–98

    28,110

    33,300

    61,400

    1998–99

    24,300

    31,640

    55,940

    1999–2000

    21,630

    33,060

    54,680

    2000—01

    20,270

    34,860

    55,130

    1 Data for these years is not available.

    Source:

    Graduate Teacher Training Registry and Universities and Colleges Admission Service.

    Table 2: the number of entrants to postgraduate and undergraduate teacher training courses

    Undergraduate

    Postgraduate

    Total

    England and Wales

    1990–91

    11,840

    11,960

    23,800

    1991–92

    13,760

    15,050

    28,800

    1992–93

    15,490

    16,500

    31,990

    1993–94

    14,360

    17,690

    32,050

    1994–95

    12,420

    19,090

    31,500

    1995–96

    11,700

    19,330

    31,020

    1996–97

    10,950

    19,720

    30,660

    1997–98

    10,460

    19,480

    29,930

    1998–99

    9,650

    18,790

    28,430

    1999–2000

    9,340

    18,880

    28,220

    2000–01

    8,960

    21,190

    30,140

    England Only

    2000–01

    8,100

    19,620

    27,720

    Note:

    The figures above do not include trainees on employment based routes.

    Source:

    DFE Recruitment Survey, 1990–91 to 1993–94; HESES 1994–95; TTA Survey of ITT Providers 1995–96 to 2000–01.

    Table 3: the number of successful completers gaining QTS on teacher training courses by phase of training

    Year of completion

    Undergraduate

    Postgraduate

    Total

    England and Wales1

    1990

    6,270

    9,600

    15,870

    1991

    6,930

    10,380

    17,300

    1992

    7,330

    13,460

    20,790

    1993

    8,350

    15,110

    23,460

    1994

    9,380

    16,130

    25,510

    1995

    10,500

    17,330

    27,830

    1996

    11,230

    16,900

    28,120

    321W

    Table 3: the number of successful completers gaining QTS on teacher training courses by phase of training

    Year of completion

    Undergraduate

    Postgraduate

    Total

    1997

    10,640

    17,780

    28,410

    1998

    9,680

    17,150

    26,820

    1999

    10,180

    16,500

    26,670

    2000

    7,590

    16,160

    23,750

    England only2

    2000

    6,850

    14,850

    21,690

    2001

    6,490

    16,150

    22,640

    1 DfES Database of Teacher Records

    22 TTA Performance Profiles

    Tuition Fees
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to review the system of tuition fees; and if he will make a statement. [118507]

    Alan Johnson
    The Department for Education and Skills has reviewed the system of tuition fees as part of a wider assessment of the higher education sector. The White Paper "The Future of Higher Education" (Cm 5735) which was published in January 2003 sets out our proposals to allow higher education institutions to charge variable fees, between £0 and £3000 per year per course from 2006/07. We will also abolish up front fees, so that students can defer paying their fees until after they graduate. We will continue to provide a means-tested grant to cover the standard tuition fee (£1,100 in 2002/03), as part of a wider package of measures to encourage students from families on low incomes to enter higher education. We have no further plans for review of the system of tuition fees.

    University Admissions
    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the letter referred to in paragraph 5 of Page 19 of Widening Participation in higher education from the Secretary of State to Office for Fair Access setting out guidance on applying the statutory framework for access agreements and covering an institution's milestones for assessing progress in widening participation will include admissions from(a) type of schools and (b) family social class as such milestones. [118065]

    Alan Johnson
    "Widening participation in higher education" made clear that it would be for "each university to decide on the milestones that are appropriate to its circumstances that it wishes to include in the access agreements".

    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to the reply of 3 June from the Minister for Higher Education to the honourable Member for Hertsmere, ref 115686, how he expects that the Office for Fair Access will assess the milestones to be adopted by individual institutions. [118268]

    Alan Johnson
    "Widening participation in higher education" made clear that it would be for "each university to decide on the milestones that are appropriate to its circumstances that it wishes to include in the access agreements".
    322W
    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students have been wrongly informed by UCAS that they have lost their place at the university of their choice for 2003/04. [117871]

    Alan Johnson
    [holding answer 9 June 2003]: We have been advised by the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) that no students were wrongly informed that they had lost their place at the university of their choice. 18,000 prospective students were informed by UCAS in May that it had not received from them the necessary confirmations of acceptance of offers from institutions, and that a further 10 days were available for that process to be completed. The latest data available to UCAS indicates that the number of unconfirmed offers is now lower than at the corresponding point last year.

    University Students
    Mr. Paterson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of sixth formers in north Shropshire went to university in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–01 and (e) 2001–02. [110073]

    Alan Johnson
    Figures for the number of students who enter higher education are not collated centrally by constituency. The latest available information, showing the proportion of 18-year-olds from Shropshire Local Education Authority (LEA) entering full-time undergraduate courses in the UK via the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS), is given in the table.

    It should be noted that the proportions in the table are based only on the number of 18-year-olds entering full-time HE. This is a different definition to the Department's main measures of HE participation: the Age Participation Index (API), which measures the proportion of UK domiciled students who enter full-time HE by the age of 20, and the Initial Entry Rate (IER) which measures the proportion of 17–30-year-old English domiciled first time entrants to full or part-time HE. Neither the API nor the IER are calculated for each LEA, because of the lack of detailed data at local authority level.

    Proportion of 18-year-olds entering full-time HE courses via UCAS

    Year of entry

    Students from:

    1997

    1998

    1999

    2000

    2001

    2002

    Shropshire

    21.5

    23.3

    22.8

    24.3

    24.1

    26.3

    Telford and the Wrekin1

    2—

    16.3

    18.3

    18.0

    18.6

    19.4

    All English LEAs

    20.5

    20.0

    20.0

    20.6

    21.5

    22.0

    1 As a result of Local Government Re-organisation Telford and Wrekin, which was previously part of Shropshire, became a separate LEA in 1998.

    2 Not applicable.

    York Minster Catalogue
    Hugh Bayley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money the Higher Education Funding Council for England has provided to the University of York to computerise the catalogue of York Minster Library to improve access to it by
    323W
    higher education; and what obligations the Minster library has to higher education institutions in return for this funding. [118762]

    Alan Johnson
    The University of York received funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) of around £390,000 in two phases for this project which was completed in 2000. The project has enabled the catalogue of the Minster's collection of books to be available on line and made more widely accessible to researchers via international networks.

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Arms Exports (Indonesia)
    Jeremy Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what level of ECGD cover has been provided in relation to the sale of rnilitary equipment to Indonesia in each year since 1999; what amounts are outstanding in relation to all ECGD-covered military sales to Indonesia; and if he will list the licences granted for the export of military equipment to Indonesia since 2001. [118208]

    Ms Hewitt
    ECGD has issued no guarantees relating to exports of military equipment to Indonesia since 1999.

    £555 million is outstanding in respect of ECGD claims payments made in cases involving exports of defence equipment to Indonesia. These claims are being repaid, with interest, under three Paris Club agreements covering debt falling due between July 1998 and December 2003.

    Between 1 January 2003 and 2 June 2003, two Open Individual Export Licences and 48 Standard Individual Export Licences were issued, for goods on the military list, where the end users were in Indonesia, with the following ratings:

    MLI, ML4, ML5. ML6, MLIO, ML1I, ML13, ML22 and PL5017

    The details of all export licences issued are published by destination in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls. A copy of the 2001 Annual Report is available from the Libraries of the House. The 2002 Annual Report will be published shortly.

    Assay Tests
    Mr. Mark Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what information she has collated on the number of precious metal items failing assay tests in the latest year for which information is available; [1116752]

    (2) whether she has undertaken a regulatory impact assessment of the implementation of Annex III of the draft directive on articles made of precious metal. [116751]

    Mr. Sutcliffe
    The UK assay offices rejected 66,000 items in 2002. This represents 0.19 per cent. of the 34,000,000 items tested.
    324W
    The Department has not yet undertaken a Regulatory Impact Assessment on the implementation of Annex III of the draft EU Directive on the marking of precious metals. An RIA will be produced when the Italians formally propose to revive the draft Directive. Officials have discussed the likely impact of Annex III with stakeholders including the Assay Offices, Trading Standards, manufacturers and retailers. The Government do not support the Directive.

    Auditors
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will introduce legislation to cap the liability of auditors; and if she will make a statement. [119842]

    Jacqui Smith
    The Government are considering the recommendations of the independent Company Law Review.

    Broadband
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what sums have been paid to(a) NTL and (b) BT to assist in the rollout of broadband services; when such payments were made; and if she will make a statement. [117716]

    Mr. Timms
    Certain Regional Development Agencies made payments from the (DTI's £30 million) broadband fund to BT in 2002 for Exchange Activate Trials to test a new approach to bring broadband ADSL technology to small exchanges across the UK, where previously it was not commercially viable.

    Under the Cornwall ActNow project, assisted by EC Objective 1 funding, BT received £237,225 from DTI between December 2001 and August 2002, as a result of a tender process to upgrade exchange for broadband in a region where such investment would also not be commercially viable.

    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received on the compatibility of public sector broadband with EU state aid rules; and if she will issue guidance on the application of state aid rules for broadband projects. [117720]

    Mr. Timms
    The state aid branch of the DTI provides advice to public authorities to ensure that interventions are compatible with EU state aid rules. The DTI-led public sector broadband aggregation project is being informed by advice from this unit.

    There are no specific state aid rules relating to broadband but further guidance on the application of the rules in general can be found at www.dti.gov.uk/ europe/stateaid.

    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the reasons for poor quality of band connections in rural areas. [118830]

    Mr. Timms
    7 per cent. of rural households have broadband access, compared with 72 per cent. of households across the country as a whole. Service providers have focussed initially on certain markets
    325W
    because—in the case of BT—more customers can be served within a given distance of an exchange in densely populated areas.

    I have now established a dedicated rural broadband team, working closely with Defra, to help promote the availability and take up of broadband in rural areas.

    Cat and Dog Fur
    Mr. Lyons
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she is taking to prevent the trade in cat and dog fur. [117396]

    Ms Hewitt
    The Government are investigating possibilities for labelling any products that may contain domestic cat and dog fur. Equally we are working to ensure a reliable scientific test is in place to validate the accuracy of any such labels. This will give consumers the information they want about exactly what they are buying. We will report back to Parliament before summer recess.

    It has not proved possible to determine either through trade statistics or through scientific testing, what level of imports of these products, if any, is entering the UK. Therefore the Government do not consider any more trade-restrictive action to be proportionate to the scale of the problem at this time.

    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make it her policy to ban the importation of cat and dog fur. [118112]

    Ms Hewitt
    The Government are investigating possibilities for labelling any products that may contain domestic cat and dog fur. Equally we are working to ensure a reliable scientific test is in place to validate the accuracy of any such labels. This will give consumers the information they want about what exactly they are buying. We will report back to Parliament before the summer recess.

    It has not proved possible to determine, either through trade statistics or through scientific testing, what level of imports of these products, if any, is entering the UK. Therefore the Government do not consider any prohibition on imports to be proportionate to the scale of the problem at this time.

    Citizens Advice Bureaux
    Mr. Hepburn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many debt inquiries have been reported by the Citizens Advice Bureau in(a) the UK, (b) Tyne and Wear, (c) South Tyneside and (d) the Jarrow constituency in each year since 1997. [119120]

    Mr. Sutcliffe
    The coordinating body for Citizens Advice Bureaux (CABx), Citizens Advice, included a table in their May 2003 report on debt, "In Too Deep". This table contains figures for the number of new debt inquiries to CABx in the UK from 1997 to 2002, as follows:

    Number

    1997–98

    862,019

    1998–99

    952,734

    1999–2000

    1,031,377

    2000–01

    1,038,066

    2001–02

    1,066,509

    326W
    The full table, including a breakdown of type of debt inquiries, can be found on the Citizens Advice's website at: http://www.citizerisadvice.org.uk

    Citizens Advice does not, however, have statistics available on a regional or constituency basis.

    Mr. Hepburn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans the Government have to help tackle debt-related issues reported by the Citizens Advice Bureau. [119122]

    Mr. Sutcliffe
    The Government are currently considering the issues raised in the report, "In Too Deep", and have met Citizens Advice to discuss some of them.

    A number of the concerns raised by Citizens Advice are already being addressed by the review of Government policy on over-indebtedness. The review aims to investigate the demand for money advice and financial literacy programmes, clarify the roles and responsibilities of Government Departments, and make recommendations on future Government policy on reducing over-indebtedness. It will also focus in particular on achieving effective co-ordination of policy across Government.

    Coal Miners (Compensation)
    Ms Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which company is providing the expert report on miners' coal health claims and private small mines; and if she will set out the timetable for reaching an agreement between the solicitors and the private mine owners. [119490]

    Mr. Timms
    The expert report on miners coal health claims and private small mines being produced for the claimants' solicitors is a matter for that party, not the Department of Trade and Industry. It is not possible to stipulate a precise timetable for agreement between the Department, the claimants' solicitors and the small mines; however, negotiations are at an advanced stage and will continue as soon as the expert report is available, which is expected to be in the near future.

    Community Pharmacies
    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many representations her Department has received relating to the effect of deregulation on community pharmacies. [119063]

    Mr. Sutcliffe
    [holding answer 17 June 2003]: The Department has received a very substantial number and range of representations from stakeholders both sent to the DTI directly and forwarded to us for our information by health departments.

    Consultations
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has held with(a) HSBC, (b) the Royal Bank of Scotland, (c) Halifax Bank of Scotland and (d) Abbey National concerning the provision of ban king services in the Post Office; and if she will make a statement. [119840]
    327W
    Mr. Timms
    The Government are keen that as many accounts as possible should be accessible at post offices. HSBC, the Royal Bank of Scotland, Halifax Bank of Scotland and Abbey National agreed to make their basic bank accounts accessible at post office counters from 1 April 2003 when universal banking services became operational. The Post Office's plans to extend post office access to all current account holders are a commercial matter between Post Office Ltd. and individual banks. I have not, therefore, had any recent discussions with these banks concerning the provision of wider banking services at the Post Office.

    Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Act
    Mr. Swire
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is on the Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Act. [118164]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The Government supported the private member's legislation that was enacted last Session as the Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Act 2002. We are in touch with disability groups and organisations representing copyright owners on the most appropriate date for commencement of the Act in the next few months.

    Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations
    Angela Eagle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the vires of section 7.3 of the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003. [118583]

    Mr. Sutcliffe
    [holding answer 10 June 2003]: We have considered the position carefully and are satisfied as to the vires of the provision in Regulation 7(3) of the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003. We consider that the provisions of Regulation 7(3) are consistent with Article 4 in Council Directive 2000/ 78/EC, which these Regulations implement.

    Equality Law
    Julie Morgan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will introduce legislation to unify and extend equality law. [119754]

    Ms Hewitt
    The Government are taking forward a significant legislative agenda on equality matters. This includes introducing protection against discrimination in employment and vocational training on the grounds of sexual orientation, religion and belief and age to implement the EU Employment and Race Directives. We are also strengthening and widening existing disability legislation, providing rights of recognition for trans-gendered people and looking at how same sex partnerships might be recognised.

    These are complex and far reaching changes which will need time to bed down once they are introduced. We are ensuring that we implement the Employment and Race Directives in a way that achieves greater consistency wherever possible across the equality strands. We do not believe however that comprehensive unifying legislation is the most appropriate way forward.
    328W

    Export Control Act
    Mr. Gardiner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to his answer of 16 May 2003,Official Report, column 463W, which of the Home Office guidelines (a) would and (b) would not be met if extra-territorial jurisdiction were to be given in the secondary orders for the Export Control Act 2002. [119211]

    Nigel Griffiths
    Home Office guidelines are a matter for the Home Secretary.

    Extra-territorial Jurisdiction
    Mr. Gardiner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 16 May 2003,Official Report, column 463W, how that part of the Home Office guidelines that states that (a) not all of the points have to be met and (b) that extra-territorial jurisdiction can be considered in cases where at least one of the criteria is met informs the work of her Department. [119212]

    Nigel Griffiths
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given today, PQ No. 119211.

    Foreign Inward Investment
    Caroline Flint
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what incentives are being offered to encourage foreign inward investors in the UK. [116573]

    Ms Hewitt
    The UK attracts more investment than any other country in Europe, and in the world, is second only behind the US (FDI inward stock figures for 2001 source: UNCTAD World Investment Report 2002). Invest-UK works in partnership with all of the UK's Development Agencies to attract the maximum level of inward investment and to market the UK's attractions for high quality investment. Regional Selective Assistance (RSA) is available to foreign inward investors located, or planning to locate, within the UK's assisted areas. RSA provides grants to help support business expansions and create and safeguard jobs.

    Fossil Fuels
    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether it is the Government's intention to exploit all the UK's economically recoverable fossil fuel reserves. [117833]

    Mr. Timms
    Consistent with the Government's Energy White Paper published in February this year, the Government support the full economic recovery of the UK's fossil fuel resources.

    Government Contracts
    Margaret Moran
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of Government contracts have been awarded to small business in each year since 1997. [119613]

    Nigel Griffiths
    The Government has not historically collected this data. However, I have asked the Small Business Service to undertake an annual survey of Government procurement and I hope to be able to
    329W
    report the results of the 2001–02 survey shortly. The Small Business Service will be commencing the 2002–03 survey at the same time.

    Mr. Martlew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of government contracts have been awarded to small businesses, broken down by Government Department and agency since 1997. [119638]

    Nigel Griffiths
    The Government have not historically collected these data. However, I have asked the Small Business Service to undertake an annual survey of government procurement and I hope to be able to report the results of the 2001–02 survey, broken down by Government Department, agency etc. shortly. The Small Business Service will be commencing the 2002–03 survey at the same time.

    Ink Cartridges
    Llew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she has taken to promote the re-use of ink cartridges used in laser and inkjet printers. [119907]

    Mr. Timms
    The printer cartridge refill business is steadily growing. The Department welcomes this but has not seen a need to take specific measures to promote the sector.

    National Institute for Medical Research
    Mr. Gardiner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will make a statement on the Medical Research Council's proposal to close down the National Institute for Medical Research at Mill Hill; [117004]

    (2) what consultation there has been over proposals to close the National Institute for Medical Research at Mill Hill. [117005]

    Ms Hewitt
    No decision has been taken regarding the future of the National Institute for Medical Research. The Medical Research Council is, at present, developing a long-term strategy for its major capital investments over the next 10 to 15 years, including the National Institute for Medical Research.

    The MRC informed all MRC Unit and Institute Directors of the decision to establish a Council Subcommittee to develop this strategy with further information on its terms of reference and membership—all Directors had the opportunity to comment on the consultation document when released on 4 April 2003. The Directors at the four sites were consulted over the six months taken to discuss and agree the strategy. The Directors at the four sites have had the opportunity to comment on the over-arching strategy and submit comments relating to their institutes. The draft strategy was released for general consultation on 4 April 2003 and the deadline for comments was extended to 26 May 2003.

    MRC has recently announced that, as a next step, they will be establishing an expert task force to include Council members, independent scientists from UK and abroad, and senior scientists currently working at NIMR. The task force will aim to accelerate further development of a vision for a strong scientific future
    330W
    for NIMR. This will include consideration of, and consultation on, a broader set of options for the size and location of NIMR. Establishment of the task force emphasizes the MRC's commitment to continued stakeholder consultation and to consideration all the options for the future of the NIMR.

    Official Spelling
    Bob Russell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make it her policy that official(a) correspondence, (b) reports and (c) documentation from her office uses the English spelling of words where this differs from the US version. [118860]

    Ms Hewitt
    All correspondence, reports and documentation issued by my office are written in accordance with the Cabinet Office guidance on the handling of Ministerial and other correspondence, which emphasise that appropriate arrangements should be in place to ensure that the quality of all replies is high. My office also adheres to the Cabinet Office guidance on plain written English.

    Partnership Agreements
    Angela Eagle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether she plans to conclude a partnership agreement with the trade unions representing the staff in her Department. [117449]

    Ms Hewitt
    A Partnership Statement was agreed with the Trade Union by my Department in February 2001.

    Post Office Pensions
    Mr. Robathan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the(a) reported deficit in the pension fund of Royal Mail Group and (b) treatment of the pension credit in Consignia's last two annual accounts and the six monthly accounts for September 2002; and if she will estimate the total change in credit and deficit in those accounts. [114582]

    Mr. Timms
    [holding answer 22 May 2003]: These are matters that fall within the day-to-day responsibility of Royal Mail. I have therefore asked the company's chief executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

    Precious Metals Directive
    Kate Hoey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, (1) whether(a) her ministers and (b) officials have met representatives of the (i) British Retail Consortium and (ii) Consumers' Association to discuss the EU draft directive on precious metals; and if she will make a statement; [116828]

    (2) with which stakeholders her officials are discussing the Government's position on the EU draft directive on precious metals; and if she will make a statement. [116866]

    Mr. Sutcliffe
    Neither Ministers nor officials have met representatives of the British Retail Consortium or the Consumers' Association to discuss the Draft EU Directive on the marking of precious metals. Officials have met representatives of the National Association of
    331W
    Goldsmiths, which represents retail jewellers, and have been in contact with representatives of the Consumers' Association regarding the Directive.

    Officials have discussed the Draft Directive with, among others, the British Hallmarking Council, the Assay Offices, Trading Standards and jewellery manufacturers. The Government does not support the Directive.

    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the policy is of the Government towards the Precious Metals Directive; and if she will make a statement. [118225]

    Mr. Sutcliffe
    The Government do not support the Directive.

    Printing Waste
    Bob Russell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she plans to take to implement the recommendations of the Office of Fair Trading report on the cost of printers and the cost of ink cartridges; and if she will make a statement. [118083]

    Mr. Sutcliffe
    Recommendations in the report are a matter for the Office of Fair Trading to follow up with the IT industry.

    Pyramid Selling
    Mr. Barnes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the(a) place and (b) dates of the conviction were of her Department's 1987 prosecution under the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the Pyramid Selling Schemes Regulations 1973; what companies were involved; what sentences were conferred; to which offences the companies and directors pleaded guilty; and if she will make a statement. [115993]

    Mr. Sutcliffe
    Central records within the DTI enforcement section have been unable to locate a 1987 prosecution under the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the Pyramid Selling Schemes Regulations 1973.

    Renewable Energy Policy
    Mr. Bellingham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what types of wood and other biomass material are classified as renewable for the purposes of the renewable obligation certificates available for industry; and whether this includes(a) material grown specifically for a renewable energy programme and (b) wood which is produced for other purposes. [119183]

    Mr. Timms
    All types of wood and other biodegradable material are renewable as the term is used in the Utilities Act and the Renewables Obligation Order (RO).

    Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) may be issued only for the biodegradable fraction of the fuel supply, and only where the conditions of the Renewable Obligation Order concerning the fuel supply and technology used are met. Where the feedstock is at least 98 per cent. biodegradable, there is eligibility for ROCs regardless of the energy conversion technology used.
    332W
    Where the feedstock is mixed waste, there is eligibility only in the case of advanced energy conversion technologies.

    In the case of stations fired by both a fossil-derived fuel and biomass (known as co-firing), waste which is purely biomass is eligible under the Renewables Obligation until 31 March 2011, but from 1 April 2006, at least 75 per cent. of the biomass must be from energy crops as defined in the Renewables Obligation Order, that is "a plant crop planted after 1 January 1990 primarily for the purpose of being used as a fuel".

    A technical review of the Renewables Obligation, including the co-firing provisions, is under way. This will be followed by a Statutory Consultation, beginning later in the summer.

    Royal Mail
    Keith Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will next meet the Chairman of Royal Mail. [120071]

    Mr. Timms
    As shareholder of Royal Mail Holdings plc, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry meets the Chairman several times a year. Their next meeting has not yet been scheduled.

    Small and Medium Businesses
    Brian Cotter
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list sector specific guidance produced by her Department for small and medium sized enterprises since February 2002; and if she will make a statement. [119448]

    Nigel Griffiths
    [holding answer 16 June 2003]: The Small Business Service (SBS) provides guidance and advice to all SMEs via the national network of Business Link Operators and the Business Link Website. Current sector specific guidance on the Website includes aerospace, agriculture, rural retail, biotechnology, the automotive industry and the building sector. The Business Link Website—www.businesslink.org—provides fuller information.

    Terrorism
    Mr. Gummer
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to ensure that first tier authorities share their plans with parish councils for dealing with terrorist incidents at nuclear power stations. [119101]

    Mr. Timms
    First tier local authorities are required under the Radiation (Emergency Preparedness and Public Information) Regulations 2001 (REPPIR), to prepare and exercise the emergency plans which would be activated in the event of an emergency with off-site consequences at a civil nuclear site. This would include an emergency which might result from a terrorist incident. In the preparation of these plans, first tier local authorities are required to consult interested parties or agencies, which could include elected councillors at county, borough and parish level. They are also required to consult on any proposed changes or reviews, and we would expect them to continue to share their plans
    333W
    with interested parties after publication. REPPIR is monitored and enforced by the Health and Safety Executive.

    University Challenge Fund
    Mr. Bellingham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the objectives are of the University Challenge Fund; what progress has been made towards achieving those objectives; and if she will make a statement. [119639]

    Ms Hewitt
    The objective of University Challenge is to deliver commercial opportunities by enabling universities to access seed funding to assist the commercialisation of their research. In their first three years of operation, the 15 Seed Funds established in 1999 have assisted the creation of 159 spin outs companies, the development of 81 patents and 11 licences.

    Mr. Bellingham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the financial benefits to the UK economy from the University Challenge Fund have been found by her Department to exceed the money spent on it. [119640]

    Ms Hewitt
    It is too early to assess the ultimate economic impact of the University Challenge Fund. However, by its third year of operation, initial investment of £30 million by the University Challenge Funds had attracted an additional £40 million from private sector sources. An evaluation of the University Challenge scheme will be carried out in due course.

    Mr. Bellingham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been spent on the University Challenge Fund each year since it was started; what the projected level of expenditure is over the next five years; and whether these figures are different from projected expenditure levels when the fund was created. [119641]
    334W
    Ms Hewitt
    The Government awarded £25 million towards the first round of University Challenge in 1998–99, and a further £15 million for a second round in 2001. Future funding for University Challenge activity will be provided as part of the Higher Education Innovation Fund for which a total of £171 million was allocated in Spending Review 2002. The grant drawn down by the University Challenge Funds each year is published in the DTI Consolidated Resource Accounts.

    Unsolicited E-mails
    Tom Levitt
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the threat to the integrity of the internet posed by the incidence of spam e-mails; and what measures she proposes to combat spamming. [119421]

    Mr. Timms
    Bulk untargeted e-mails can cause serious offence and nuisance to the recipients and cause problems for internet service providers whose networks can be blocked or slowed down. The Government will be introducing stricter rules on unsolicited commercial e-mail under the Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications and draft Regulations are available for consultation until 19 June. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House and are also available on the DTI website at: www.dti.gov.uk/industries/econommunications/directive_on_privacy_electronic_ communications_200258ec

    Wind Farms
    Mr. Keetch
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with Force 9 regarding a wind farm in the Golden Valley in Herefordshire; and if she will make a statement. [119802]

    Mr. Timms
    [holding answer 17 June 2003]: The Department has had no discussions with Force 9 regarding a possible application under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to build a wind farm in the Golden Valley.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Independent Commissioner for Detained Terrorist Suspects
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy)
  I have today arranged for copies of Dr Bill Norris' Annual Report for 2002 to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  I welcome Dr Norris' report and I will consider it carefully. I will respond as soon as possible.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Right to Buy
  The Minister of State for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  On 22 January 2003, the Deputy Prime Minister announced that he intended to reduce the maximum discounts available to tenants under the Right to Buy scheme in 42 areas that were under the greatest housing market pressure, as evidenced by a high incidence of homelessness and high house prices.

  Having considered representations from a number of local authorities and post-transfer housing associations, the Deputy Prime Minister decided to reduce the maximum discounts in 41 areas. This decision was implemented by the Housing (Right to Buy) (Limits on Discounts) (Amendments) Order 2003 (Statutory Instrument 2003 No. 498), which was laid before Parliament on 6 March 2003 and came into effect on 27 March 2003.

  At the request of Opposition Members, this Order was debated on 12 May 2003 in the Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation (Official Report, 12 May 2003, columns 3–26). During the debate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, agreed to publish information on how all housing authority areas ranked in terms of housing pressure.

  A table containing the information has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The Order does not affect areas in Wales, which for Right to Buy purposes are subject to different arrangements administered by the National Assembly for Wales.

  The areas are grouped according to the nine English regions—London, South-East, East, South-West, East Midlands, West Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber, North-East and North-West. Each area was ranked on a scale of 1 (high) to 5 (low) according to the levels of homelessness and house prices locally, and these rankings were used to determine the 41 areas under the greatest housing pressure.
  10WS
  Subsequently, information relating to earned incomes became available, and the model was rerun to take account of affordability. The effects on individual areas of doing so were marginal.

  I have today written to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and to the Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation to convey this information, and to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) and to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) to clarify a separate point made during the debate about the costs of the Right to Buy. Copies of these letters have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Sierra Leone
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell)
  With the support of Her Majesty's Government, the UN Security Council has allowed the remaining sanctions under UNSCR 1446(2002) against the import of uncertified rough diamonds from Sierra Leone to terminate with effect from 5 June 2003. The resolution extended the embargo against the direct or indirect import of rough diamonds without a Certificate of Origin, controlled by the Government of Sierra Leone. This is in recognition of the peace in Sierra Leone and the efforts that the Government of Sierra Leone has made towards securing its diamond-mining areas and in pursuing a successful diamond policy. Sierra Leone is now a participant of the Kimberley Process.

TREASURY

  National Insurance
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo)
  In my written statement on the suspension of National Insurance Contributions deficiency notices of 16 May, I informed the House of the action I had taken to ensure that no-one missed out. I took action to:protect the position of those who choose to make voluntary contributions by suspending the six year rule;
  ensure that the six year rule will run from the beginning of this financial year so that people affected have the same amount of time to make contributions as they would have had if they had been informed earlier;
  freeze the contribution rate at the rate that would have applied at the time, so no one has to pay more than they would have to at to the time;
  ensure that people receive a consolidated deficiency notice to enable them to make an informed decision.

  I also informed the House that I had asked the Inland Revenue to carry out a full enquiry into the circumstances surrounding the suspension of National Insurance Contributions deficiency notices in 1998 and of subsequent events.

  I have today received and am now publishing the recommendations of this inquiry and I am pleased to be able to inform the House that the Board of Inland Revenue have accepted all of these recommendations.
  11WS
  In the course of the inquiry, the Inland Revenue have confirmed that no Minister was consulted or informed of the decision to suspend deficiency notices at the time it was taken in 1998.

  A detailed trawl of former DSS files has however found that, during 2000 and 2001, Ministers at the then DSS saw internal DSS submissions that, in the wider context of NIRS2 recovery, made reference to the fact that deficiency notices had been suspended, but that they could begin again in the last quarter of 2000–01. In the same period, a submission on NIRS2 was sent to me which referred to the use of deficiency notices, but did
  12WS
  not inform me that they had been suspended. Thereafter, in March 2001, the Minister of State at the then DSS was informed that the issue of deficiency notices would be resumed shortly.

  The Inland Revenue will publish details shortly of how it plans to issue deficiency notices in respect of the years since 1996–97. These notices will tell people if they have any missing contributions in those years, and what they can do to fill the gaps in their contribution record if they choose to do so.

  I will continue to keep the House fully informed of any further information on this matter.

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

Asylum Seekers: Processing Centres
Lord Greaves Lord Greaves asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made with their proposal to set up joint European Union holding and processing centres for asylum seekers outside the boundaries of the Union.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the ideas put forward by the Government in March have evolved through constructive consultations with other member states and international bodies. We are encouraged that both the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the European Commission agree on the need better to manage asylum-related flows to make such protection both equitable and sustainable in the 21st century. We are looking to address these issues in partnership with countries in the region and will report back to the House in due course.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Several months ago, the Government's policy was that some people who applied for asylum within this country or at ports of entry should be immediately transported to camps outside the borders of the European Union for their applications to be processed. However, on Monday Beverley Hughes said in the House of Commons:
"We currently have no plans to process asylum seekers on the borders of the EU … There is no prospect of any camps".—[Official Report,, Commons, 16/6/03; col. 13.]
Will the Minister confirm the welcome news that this policy has been dropped and that the Government have abandoned the highly undesirable policy of transporting persons claiming asylum in Britain to unspecified far-away places before their claims have been properly assessed and determined in this country?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can certainly confirm that the information given by my honourable friend Beverley Hughes in another place is correct. However, I cannot agree with the way in which the noble Lord described our policies. We know that
796
there is a lot of speculation about what the policy might be. We welcome the comments made in the European Commission's recent communication and the support that we have received from the UNHCR and we will continue to work with it in relation to these matters. On transportation to unspecified places, we are working with the UNHCR to ensure that we have a robust position.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, is not the underlying principle of the 1951 refugee convention that applications for asylum should be made in the first safe country reached by those wanting to apply for asylum? What consideration are the Government giving to enabling people to make such applications in the first safe country they come to for asylum in the United Kingdom without having to use the monstrous and expensive services of people traffickers?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. The convention does provide for the first safe country to be the place where succour is sought. The Dublin II convention enables us to do that most effectively. We have to consider three areas: the support and assistance needed by the regions that suffer most from this difficulty; the value of a common asylum procedure, which we are developing with the UNHCR; and the appropriate provisions that we should take domestically to ensure that our system is fair and safe for all.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the UNHCR has nevertheless expressed serious concerns about the workability of this project, and that the Refugee Council has condemned it as unprincipled, unworkable and expensive? Does she not agree that the only solution to this continuing problem is the quota system advocated by my party?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear what the noble Viscount is saying in relation to the quota system. However, I cannot agree with some of his earlier comments. Noble Lords will know that the High Commissioner, Ruud Lubbers, is very supportive of the United Kingdom's proposals. His approach is similar to ours. We welcome the constructive role played by the UNHCR. Our proposals are very much in line with his Convention Plus initiative that will be formally launched at the end of this month. They, as we, recognise that we need a refugee protection and asylum processing system that is fit for the 21st century. We are now on the 'way towards crafting such a programme.
Earl Russell: My Lords, although I welcome any readiness by the Government to consult on and modify their proposals on asylum, is it correct that the original thrust of this policy arose from the desire to reduce the number of applications? Does the Minister yet understand that any success achieved by such a policy must be purely coincidental, because the levers that

797
direct the number of asylum seekers to this country are not, never have been, and cannot be, under the control of Her Majesty's Government?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course I do not suggest that the levers are all under the control of Her Majesty's Government. That is why I said to the House that it is important for us to have a three-pronged attack. Some people are in desperate need and they flee places of terror, but it is a tragedy that many of the most vulnerable are incapable of fleeing. Sometimes, those with greater advantages fall into the hands of traffickers and others who abuse them.
As I said earlier, to reduce the numbers of applications made here, we need a three-pronged attack. First, we must support the countries at source. Secondly, we must work together with our European partners to fashion an equitable system. Thirdly, we must ensure that the system in this country is robust and fair and provides proper support for those who merit our support.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, the Minister said that she supports the quota system mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, but is that not a rather reduced system? Given the new policy of working closer with Europe, is this now not going to take a back seat?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I said that I heard what the noble Viscount said on that; I did not say that we agreed with it. Of course we are seeking to fashion something that will be fit for purpose, and we are doing that with the European Commission which has been supportive of what the UK has done. In fact, the European Commission's recent communication said that the UK paper was a very timely one, as it linked well to the global momentum created by the agenda for the Protection and Convention Plus initiative. It also said:
"The UK paper provides the right analysis of the deficiencies in the current international protection regime and asks the appropriate questions, helping to address the challenges the EU asylum system faces".
The European Commission thinks that we have got it right, and I respectfully agree.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, since the Minister was unable to confirm that the transportation system has been abandoned, will she answer the reverse question and tell us whether it remains the Government's wish to carry out such a policy?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can only say to the noble Lord that the Government are trying to look creatively at determining the most effective and efficient means of dealing with what we all know to be an extremely complex position. When we have a clear position, I will of course, as I said in my first Answer, report that to the House.

Museums: Education
2.43 p.m.
Lord Harrison Lord Harrison asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will fund a free annual museum visit for every child, as recently proposed by the Museums Association.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Education and Skills are developing a joint strategy for museums education. The Museums Association's imaginative proposal will certainly be considered, alongside others.
All the national museums offer free access, not only to children but to all visitors. In addition, new funds that we have allocated to regional museums will enable these institutions to increase the educational services that they can provide.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that positive answer, I suggest that this proposal will help many schoolchildren to develop a lifelong love of their local museums and galleries. It will help teachers to deliver the national curriculum by making the best use of the museums and their education officers. It will help museums—which are often cash strapped—and it will encourage museums to ensure that their holdings are presented in the most user-friendly way. Will the Minister consider this proposal as an adjunct to the stunningly good government development of making entry to our national museums and galleries free?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is exactly why I described the proposal as imaginative. It is a real and important way of bridging the gap that exists between many children and the real objects that one finds in museums.
As a word of warning, on the Museums Association's own estimate, about 6.5 million children would qualify for support of this kind. Even if that is multiplied by the £10 that they estimate it would cost, not for entry to the museum, but for transport, instruction and help afterwards and before—and I suspect that that is an underestimate—it is still a great deal of money.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that there is a good movement taking place in that instead of children visiting museums, museums are now visiting children? Surely that is far better than the suggestion that has been made.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that they are alternatives. It is true that what is called "outreach work" by museums, both national and regional, is increasing substantially. Both the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Education and Skills have been

799
putting money into that, and it is valuable. However, a visit to a museum is a different, and valuable, experience.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I must first congratulate the Minister on his new appointment.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the excellent proposal, which we support, to provide a free museum visit for every school-age child will provide a much-needed boost, given the deepening funding crisis affecting British museums?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for the congratulations. It does not give me any more money, says he, grudgingly.
I agree with the noble Baroness, but I am not sure that I understand what is being said about a funding crisis. Of course, museums are struggling to deal with the cost of the substantial increase in the number of visitors to museums. After all, we have had an increase of 70 per cent in all visitors to national museums and 41 per cent more children going to national museums. Clearly, that costs a hit more, but it is a worthwhile cause.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of a small museum outside London.
Free admission to national museums, to which the noble Lord referred, has, in some cases, had a very bad effect on other museums, which must continue to charge for entry and find that visitors go wherever entry is free. That may have contributed to the difficulties to which the noble Lord referred.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am slightly surprised to hear that. I am not denying the case to which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, refers; I do not know it, and I do not know which museum he is talking about. However, that is not what the Museums Association tells us. There is an increase in visitors, not just to national museums but to all museums. We welcome that.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords—
A Noble Lord: Speaker!
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I did not quite hear that. Viscount Falkland first.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I echo the noble Baroness's congratulations to the Minister on his well deserved promotion.
800
Obviously, there is a great deal of merit in the suggestions of the Museums Association, and we got some encouragement from the Minister's response to the Question. I would like the Minister to give a view on a hypothetical but common case. Were a group of children—11 and 12 year-olds, let us say—to go to a museum and end up in front of a showcase full of gold coins from the Roman period that had been found in an Oxfordshire field, is it not possible that they might show only momentary interest? Their teacher might explain things well, and, perhaps, one child might show an interest that might lead further. Will the suggestions lead to a more expert educative approach? Is that desirable?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I have said, the Museums Association proposes that there should be funding not for entry to the museum itself—unless it is a paying museum—but for educational work before the children visit the museum, transport to and from the museum, and for educational work after the visit. I should have thought that would apply to Roman gold coins as much as to any other real objects in museums.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, in welcoming the financial assistance now being given to regional museums, does my noble friend accept that there is a real problem for those museums as regards being able to afford new acquisitions? Given my noble friend's extensive knowledge of Her Majesty's Treasury, does he think he can unlock the door to some future funding so that our great municipal museums will be able to afford to expand and enhance the quality of their collections?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, core funding for regional museums is the responsibility of local authorities, just as the core funding for university museums is the responsibility of universities. I am well aware of the constraints under which they are placed. However, we have allocated an additional £70 million to regional museums. That is a substantial amount of money, some of which surely must be available for museum education as well as for acquisitions.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I wonder whether the Museums Association has ever considered that an annual visit to a museum, for some children, may put them off visiting museums for life.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are museums and there are museums. I do not want to criticise too violently some of the museums that I went to as a child. I hope they are not as they were then.
On the whole, the standard of display in museums in this country is very much higher than that of many other European countries. Furthermore, an annual visit is not intended to be a maximum; it is intended to be a minimum.

Parliamentary Election Deposits
2.52 p.m.
Lord Janner of Braunstone Lord Janner of Braunstone asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reject the recommendation of the Electoral Commission to abolish deposits for candidates at parliamentary elections.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): My Lords, the Electoral Commission's recommendations on changes to the electoral system, including one option on the abolition of deposits for all elections, in its report, Standing for election in the United Kingdom, were published some two weeks ago. The Government will be giving careful consideration to all these recommendations.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does he accept that the purpose of a deposit in respect of parliamentary elections is not simply to provide a disincentive to joke and crank candidates but also to deter extremists who, in the past, at a time when there was no such deposit and when some of us in another place fought for one, were receiving huge publicity at the expense of the state'? Will the Minister look at the recommendation made in 1999 by the Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs? Far from suggesting the abolition of the deposit, the committee recommended that it should be put up from £500, the sum established in 1985, to £700 and index linked. Surely that is the right way to proceed. Under no circumstances should the deposit be abolished.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am aware of the recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee to increase the deposit to £700. In fact, the vast majority of local authorities, along with the main political parties which responded to the consultation, took the view that the deposit system remained the best and most effective mechanism for ensuring that the integrity of public elections was not undermined by a proliferation of joke or frivolous candidates.
My noble friend Lord Janner has added a further important consideration which should be borne in mind when considering our response—whether the deposit also has an effect on limiting the ability of racist and extremist parties to promote their cause.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the deposit system, since the time when the amounts were greatly increased, has been effective in deterring frivolous candidatures, given that by-elections previously attracted an abundance of candidates more interested in publicity than in Parliament?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, it is always slightly difficult to know how many you would have had if you had not
802
had what you did have. Nevertheless, I believe that that is the view of electoral returning officers and many local authorities who are expert in these matters.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that the real inflation-adjusted cost of the deposit today is less than a third of what it was 50 years ago?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lord is being modest. I recollect that, when it was introduced in 1918, the deposit stood at £150. If that figure was adjusted in real terms today, it would be £4,000.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, if the Government were to decide to accept the recommendation to eliminate the deposit, could thought be given to increasing the number of assentors required to support a candidate? Currently a proposer, a seconder and eight assentors are required. If the numbers were increased quite substantially, it would demonstrate evidence of local support and avoid the issue of financial compliance. One could even have an each-way bet: either a higher deposit and a lower number of assentors, or a lower deposit and a higher number of assentors demonstrating local support.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am sure that we shall reflect on that point. The Electoral Commission recognised that its recommendation was highly contentious but felt very strongly that it was fair to smaller parties. However, a secondary recommendation was made to retain the deposit system, perhaps to standardise, and perhaps to look at the threshold as well. We shall consider all of these matters in our response.
Lord Rennard: My Lords, given that the deposit is returned on the attainment of just 5 per cent of the vote and that at the last general election no candidate was elected with a declared expenditure below around £3,000, does not the current £500 deposit represent a very small sum? Is the Minister not concerned that removing the deposit would lead to a plethora of frivolous candidates coming forward, to say nothing of extremist and dangerous candidates? Would it not make it much harder for the media to report on the candidates standing for election, leading to a further reduction in turn-out, already at woefully low levels?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I do not believe that I have given the Government's view on how we will respond to the recommendations; nor should I, because that would pre-empt the process of consideration. Nevertheless, the point made by the noble Lord is certainly one that was very well argued by many of those who responded to the Electoral Commission.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it not true that people like Screaming Lord Sutch generally added to the gaiety of the nation, taking us slightly away from the overwhelming pomposity of most of those who stand for election? Surely we should not discourage frivolous and joyous people from entering into the rumbustiousness of the people's choice. The people are

803
quite intelligent enough to choose their governments. I cannot think of a case since the year 1900 when they have got it wrong.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am not sure whether that was a self-serving question. Most of us recognise that Screaming Lord Sutch did add something to the quality of life in Britain. The concern is that one would not want several hundred candidates of that type.

Burma
2.58 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Lord Faulkner of Worcester asked Her Majesty's Government:
What efforts they are making to secure the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and other political detainees in Burma.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we have repeatedly called on the Burmese authorities to release immediately Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other National League for Democracy members detained on or since 30th May 2003. We have called for a full, independent and thorough investigation into the incident and that those responsible be held to account.
Together with our EU partners, we decided to strengthen EU sanctions on Burma on 16th June. We have repeatedly called on the Burmese authorities to release all political prisoners.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords. I thank my noble friend for that reply and for her confirmation that Her Majesty's Government were outraged by the events of 30th May. Does she agree that the rationale for the detention of Aung San Suu Kyi given by the Burmese Foreign Minister at the ASEAN conference held on Monday, that she has been detained for her own protection because she was the target of an assassination attempt, is simply grotesque? The only people who might possibly welcome her death are the gangsters running the government in Burma. Everyone else believes that she is the legitimately elected leader of that country. Can my noble friend say more about the part the British Government will play in adding to international pressure through ASEAN to secure the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and the other detainees? Furthermore, what are they doing to persuade British companies such as British American Tobacco to desist helping to prop up the regime by investing in the country?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my noble friend and others can take some comfort from the fact that, whatever the Burmese Minister said at the ASEAN conference earlier this week, the ASEAN Foreign Ministers issued a joint statement that they
804
looked forward to the early lifting of the restrictions placed upon Aung San Suu Kyi. Such action is unprecedented for a group that has considered non-interference in a member's affairs a founding principle. The ASEAN nations have an important role to play in encouraging substantive change in Burma and we have seen a welcome response in that respect.
We are considering what further steps can be taken, both unilaterally and with our EU and other international partners, if the regime does not provide immediate satisfactory responses to what is going on in Burma. At the recent EU meeting on 16th June we strengthened measures in the common position and were able to agree a visa ban, an asset freeze on members of the regime and their families and a tightening of the arms embargo.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, did the Minister notice that today the Home Minister of the SPDC refused a request by the ICRC representative in Myanmar to visit Aung San Suu Kyi? Does this not greatly increase the international concern for her welfare and safety? Can the Minister give the House any information about the number of people who were killed and injured in the attack on Aung San Suu Kyi's convoy on 30th May? If the regime will not conduct an impartial inquiry into the circumstances of that event, will not the international community do well to suggest that the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights should be invited to conduct a study of what happened—preferably with a visit on site, but if necessary without one?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not have any specific figures on the number of people who were hurt or killed on 30th May when these terrible events took place. We believe that quite a number were hurt during the exchange. It is regrettable—hut not surprising—that there has been the denial of access to which the noble Lord referred. UN special envoy Razali was able to meet Aung San Suu Kyi on 10th June and confirmed that she was well and not hurt. We fully support the efforts he is making. My honourable friend Mr O'Brien telephoned the Burmese Deputy Foreign Minister on 6th June and asked to speak to Aung San Suu Kyi. He also was met with a denial.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I welcome the robust response of both Her Majesty's Government and ASEAN to the deplorable treatment of Aung San Suu Kyi. Does the Minister share the Government's reluctance to press for genocide charges to be brought against members of the Burmese military for the pernicious policies that they have pursued against the ethnic minorities inside Burma—not least against the Karen—including the systematic rape of women, the levelling to the ground of many of the towns arid villages in the Karen state, the use of porters there as forced labour and the indiscriminate laying of landmines? If this is not genocide, what is?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree that appalling human rights violations have taken place

805
over many years. But the noble Lord draws attention to the fact that we do not use the term "genocide". As I understand it, that term has a specific definition in international law. It is therefore important that we take into account the views of the appropriate international bodies when we use specific, legally binding terminology. The United Nations special rapporteur for human rights in Burma, Sergio Pinheiro, has had regular access to Burma and he does not use the term in relation to the situation there. The term has not been used by international NGOs such as Amnesty International. None of that takes away from the seriousness with which we regard the position in Burma. I agree that the issues involving ethnic minorities—including the Karen—the use of child soldiers and the use of sexual violence are extraordinary indictments of the regime in Burma.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, now that the Japanese Government have indicated their intention to review their support for Burma—and, indeed, to reduce their considerable aid flows—will the noble Baroness undertake to encourage her department to speak to the Japanese Government about ways in which we can co-ordinate increased pressure on the Burmese regime? Will she also encourage other European Union Ministers to do the same, if she has not already done so?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is important that we make common cause with all of those who take a similar view of what is happening in Burma. We have not always found the number of willing partners we have wished for. For example, we have not been able to reach a consensus in the United Nations Security Council on this issue. I agree that when we see a willingness on the part of others to move in the same way as the Japanese Government, with our colleagues in the European Union we should take full advantage to press home our points. We channel our aid through international bodies; it does not go directly to the Burmese Government. I hope that that is clearly self-evident to your Lordships. As regards trade—an issue raised by my noble friend Lord Faulkner—we discourage all trade into Burma.
Lord Elton: My Lords, which nations in the Security Council have obstructed the arrival at a consensus view condemning Burma?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am not able to give a view on that. Binding sanctions can be imposed only by the UN Security Council acting under Chapter 7 of the charter, and consensus is necessary to do so. It is clear that there is no consensus for this. It would be a mistake to push the point to clarify the position because it might give some comfort to the Burmese to know which countries are not as disturbed and distressed as we are about what is going on in Burma. Sometimes the public exposure of positions in that way can give comfort to those to whom we do not wish to give comfort.

Prison Officers: Vetting Arrangements
3.7 p.m.
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to change the vetting system for the employment of prison officers.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, a formal investigation into the circumstances of the employment of David McGee at Woodhill prison is scheduled for completion by 27th June 2003. The terms of reference include a requirement to ascertain the causes of what took place and to recommend any changes to recruitment procedures and pre-appointment vetting arrangements. The Prison Service will consider and act upon these recommendations appropriately to prevent a similar occurrence. It would not be prudent to pre-empt the findings.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she accept that the control and discipline of a prison establishment depends very much on the quality of the prison staff? I am well aware of the example she has quoted, which is a matter of serious concern. The rising number of prisoners and the lack of staff is no excuse for sloppy procedures or cutting corners. What assurance can the Minister give that those presently employed in our prison establishments have been suitably cleared?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree that it is of critical importance that the serious nature of the procedures and the necessity to adhere to them is well understood. We have done everything to ensure that that is understood. The incident to which the noble Lord implicitly referred is a matter of concern. We shall take the opportunity to consider whatever recommendations come out of the investigation.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, does not this case illustrate that there is a need for a national identity card, using biometrics positively to identify the person to whom the card has been issued?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. We await the results of the inquiry. At the moment we do not know what instrument of identification may have been used by the person to prove his identity. Like your Lordships, I shall have to await the outcome of the investigation.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord opposite for asking exactly the same question as I was about to ask.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, rather than having an internal investigation, will the Minister consider asking Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons to conduct it?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have taken the view that we need to have a clear, rapid

807
understanding of what happened and what were the circumstances, so that we can take immediate action to resolve the situation. The internal inquiry hopes to give us a preliminary outline of its recommendations on Friday of this week and to be complete by the following Friday. We believe that in this instance speed is of the essence.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the Minister nevertheless undertake to consider a review by HM Inspectorate of Prisons after the local inquiry has been completed? This issue goes far beyond one particular establishment and touches on the security of all our prisons.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can certainly assure noble Lords that we will carefully consider any recommendations made by the investigation. The noble Lord has made a very valid suggestion. We certainly have not closed our minds to any arrangement that may be necessary to ensure that this very important issue is properly addressed.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that the key issues are that prison staff are overworked, that there are too few of them, that the number of prisoners is growing, that steps are not being taken to reduce their numbers by the imposition of alternative sentences, and that as a result, whatever changes are now recommended, the situation will get worse?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot accept the very gloomy picture painted by the noble Lord. We are taking steps. Noble Lords will know that the provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill advocate a wide variety of alternative sentences, which seemed to me to be warmly welcomed by virtually everyone at Second Reading. Prison staff members must be of high quality. We are addressing the very serious issues raised by the noble Lord, and we see very good practice in a number of our prisons.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, with regard to the terms for the recruitment of prison staff without prejudice to the outcome of this particular investigation, is it the case that the staffing of prisons has been increased in line with the rising number of prisoners? Are there special problems in recruiting prison staff in particular parts of the country, and will the Minister confirm that identical standards are being maintained in recruitment procedures whether or not there are special problems in particular places?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can certainly confirm that identical standards are being applied throughout the country. Alongside that, we are trying to ensure that the sensitivities of the regions are recognised. I cannot give the right reverend Prelate specific answers about the numbers. However, I undertake to write to him in relation to those matters.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Chief Inspector of Prisons gave a
808
specific warning about understaffing in the case of Woodhill Prison? Can she assure the House that on that account the Prison Service will not lower its sights with regard to its recruiting procedures?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can assure the noble Viscount that we will not lower our sights. The noble Viscount knows that the central recruiting policy was changed to enable us to have a regional opportunity to recruit people. There is no current intention to reverse that trend because of current issues. However, we shall have to look very seriously at the lessons that may need to be learnt from the incident at Woodhill Prison.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in view of the Minister's reliance on the effect of the Criminal Justice Bill, is she not aware that it is a very detailed Bill of 374 pages, that it will not come into operation for many months and that before that time it may be considerably amended in your Lordships' House?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have, of course, had the joy of reading that Bill. I understand that it is 374 pages long. Noble Lords will know that I also had the delight of replying at Second Reading. I therefore know the challenges. However, that has not prevented us trying to put good practice into place and encouraging those invested with the huge task of sentencing to mix mercy with punishment.

Business of the House: Debate this Day
3.14 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord King of Bridgwater set down for today shall be limited to five hours.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Communications Bill
3.15 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 and 2,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 3 to 27,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 28 to 60,

Clauses 62 to 70,

Clauses 74 to 103,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 104 to 115,

Schedule 4,

809

Clauses 116 to 156,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 157 to 177,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 178 and 179,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 180 to 189,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 190 to 196,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 197 to 216,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 217 to 267,

Clause 61,

Clauses 72 and 73,

Clauses 268 to 289,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 290 to 305,

Clause 71,

Clauses 306 to 331,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 332 to 338,

Schedule 13,

Clauses 339 to 342,

Schedule 14,

Clauses 343 to 353,

Schedule 15,

Clauses 354 to 382,

Schedule 16,

Clauses 383 to 399,

Schedules 17 to 19,

Clauses 400 to 403.—(Lord Grocott.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Changes to Government Departments
3.16 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made earlier by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place.
"Mr Speaker, on Thursday we announced changes to the office of Lord Chancellor and changes in respect of the posts of Secretary of State for Scotland and for Wales.
"At present, judges are effectively selected by the Lord Chancellor. It is increasingly anomalous for a Minister, an unelected one at that, to choose judges in this way. Following the Human Rights Act, such a system is particularly outdated.
"The selection of judges should be by a transparent process, independently conducted. We propose to establish an independent judicial appointments commission to recommend candidates for appointment as judges on an open basis—something long advocated by many inside and outside the legal profession. There is already such an independent commission in place for selecting judges in Scotland, and one forms part of the agreed settlement in Northern Ireland.
810
"The Lord Chancellor will also cease to sit as a judge, and the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords will become a fully independent supreme court.
"As we said on Thursday, all these proposals will be subject to extensive consultation processes, with consultation papers issued prior to the Summer Recess. Both require legislation to pass through both Houses, so there will be ample time to debate them.
"There is one further change. Again, virtually uniquely in any major democracy, the Speaker of the upper Chamber is a member of the Cabinet appointed by the Prime Minister. We are inviting the House of Lords to choose its own Speaker by a process that the House itself should determine. That will enable the speakership to be independent of the executive, as is the Speaker in the House of Commons.
"It will have a further consequence. At present, the Lord Chancellor spends many hours in every working week fulfilling official and ceremonial duties as Speaker. But, following the changes introduced in the 1971 Courts Act, he is also the head of an extremely important department of government. He is in charge of our courts system, criminal and civil. He manages a large part of the tribunal system, including asylum and immigration appeals. He is in charge of a legal aid budget of £1.9 billion.
"There are major changes we need to see in our courts. The judiciary has made heroic efforts to run the courts more effectively in recent years. The former Lord Chancellor also made important and lasting improvements to each part of the system. But the continuing task of reform is immense. Thousands of trials each year collapse because defendants or witnesses do not appear, and far too much police time is wasted waiting in court for cases that cannot be heard. We still do not have a proper information technology system that links courts, prisons, the Crown Prosecution Service and the police. We need hugely improved co-ordination between all parts of the system. There are real problems with the way victims and witnesses are treated, still in too many parts of the country put in the same waiting areas as the accused.
"The department is a major public service department with nearly 12,000 civil servants. Yet, because of his duties in the House of Lords. the Lord Chancellor did not until last Friday even have his private office and Permanent Secretary in the department, but rather in the Palace of Westminster.
"For all those reasons, it is surely better that the Minister responsible for this department concentrates on running the department rather than on being Speaker of the House of Lords, sitting as a judge and selecting the judges. The size of his task will expand with the creation of a unified courts administration and a unified tribunal service. He will continue to ensure the independence of the

811
judiciary and will also work to ensure that the court system provides an increasingly efficient service to the public.
"As for the posts of Secretary of State for Scotland and Wales, following devolution, there is no longer a requirement for there to be Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales who hold only those offices. Their roles can be combined with other posts. The civil servants in the Scotland Office and the Wales Office will be part of the Department for Constitutional Affairs, so as to ensure they do not move, should Cabinet members change. The new department has responsibility for the devolution settlement and the new Secretary of State, like the Lord Chancellor before him, will remain chairing the main Cabinet Constitutional Reform Committee. Oral and Written Questions will continue, as now, to be answered by the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales.
"The reforms I have outlined today are essential acts of constitutional modernisation. They follow on from the success of devolution to Scotland and Wales, the Human Rights Act, the Freedom of Information Act and the removal of 90 per cent of the hereditary Peers from the House of Lords. All those reforms are now seen as welcome and permanent changes to our system of government. I am confident that the changes I have set out today will in time be regarded in the same light. I do not believe that any party in this House will reverse any of these changes, and I commend them to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.21 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement today. I hope that it will not embarrass him if I start by saying that if the Prime Minister had followed the example of the noble and learned Lord and volunteered a Statement on Monday, he would not have had to be dragged to another place by the Speaker today. If he took more advice more often from his Cabinet colleagues, perhaps he might have avoided some of the damaging criticism that has been raining on his head over the last few days.
When asked to do so, the Leader of the House apologised for the way in which Parliament was treated by the Prime Minister. But, sadly, the Prime Minister made no such apology for his discourtesy in the Statement that we have just heard. Refusal ever to acknowledge a mistake is invariably a sign of a poor government, and one heading for a fall. This is not just an Opposition view—it is a general view. The Financial Times today referred to a "shocking lack of consultation". Can the noble and learned Lord not see what is meant by that?
As Leader of the House, will the noble and learned Lord tell his colleague, Mr Hain, the new part-time Leader of another place, that before he complains about and threatens this House, he might care to look
812
at why we are sent, time after time, poorly drafted Bills that another place has not even bothered to examine in full?
We dealt on Monday with the issue of the Lord Chancellorship and the presiding officer of this House. If it is convenient for the House, I should like to leave it there until we return to it on another day. Can the noble and learned Lord confirm that it is still his intention to make a Statement on this subject next Wednesday?
Today the Prime Minister said a great deal but explained very little. We are still left in the dark about what has been called a Whitehall reorganisation that baffles most observers. Exactly what are the roles of the Scottish Secretary, the Welsh Secretary arid the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs? Do Wales Office and Scotland Office officials report to the Lord Chancellor as well as being part of the Lord Chancellor's Department? The noble and learned Lord's affection for Wales is well known. So perhaps he can explain why Mr Hain wrote in his foreword to his 2003 departmental report about his crucial,
"full-time responsibilities as Secretary of State for Wales".
Does the noble and learned Lord agree that this important job is now better conducted on a part-time basis?
The Prime Minister totally ignored the West Lothian question. The trouble is that, like letters from the bank manager, awkward questions will not go away. How will Mr Darling argue the case for adjusting the Barnett formula to allow more money for transport in England when he has the duty of putting the case for Scotland? How can Dr Reid, who represents part of a country where foundation hospitals have been rejected, impose foundation hospitals on England, whose people and MPs have no say over Scottish health policy? The questions will not go away just because the Prime Minister pretends they do not exist. Will the Lord Chancellor, if he is responsible for devolution, have responsibility for regional assemblies, and by what logic should he not do so?
Turning to the supreme court, we await the papers to be published by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House can shed light on when that will be. Will he, as Leader, provide time for full debates on issues which so directly affect us all in the House?
The Prime Minister is said to have considered all this carefully. So can the noble and learned Lord say if the supreme court will be an entirely separate creation, designed to serve Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as England? Does he agree that that would mean the Lord Chief Justice could not preside over it? What would happen in the event of a dispute between. say, the Home Secretary and the new court, and could Parliament overrule a judgment of the court? How will the new appointments commission be appointed and be made independent of those who appoint it?
Does the Prime Minister's proclamation last week mean that no more Peers will be created under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876? Do the Government intend to repeal that Act? What will happen to former

813
Lords of Appeal who sit here? The House hugely gains from their wisdom. Will they be excluded? Would others like them come to the House in future? If so, who would decide which ones would come here? Might the commission of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Coddenham, do that work? Within the package, these are important matters affecting the nature of this House which the House will expect the noble and learned Lord to be able to clarify.
This has been a sorry episode. The Statement leaves more questions in the air than it answers. But it also leaves a sour sense that the Prime Minister frankly could not care very much about this place and what we think, and a worrying sense that the Government are making it all up on their own. There is no worse way to go about constitutional change.
The noble and learned Lord seemed to suggest that the Government plan to plunge ahead on legislation next Session on the basis of as yet half-baked plans. Surely, in our hospitals and schools, there are far more urgent matters affecting this country and better deserving the attention of the Prime Minister and the time of this House.
3.27 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I do not intend to follow the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, with a barrage of detailed questions about the legal changes, because I know that there are many in this House who are more qualified than Ito do so. Indeed, we may even get some penetrating questions from the Government Back Benches.
I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the headline in today's Evening Standard:
"Blunkett admits: The reshuffle was bungled".
I put it to the Lord President that it would have been a better and more efficient use of the time of both Houses if the Prime Minister had simply admitted that.
I believe that this episode over the past five days highlights a piece of wisdom from the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, who, it will be recalled, said, "Every Prime Minister needs a Willie". It is abundantly clear that this Prime Minister lacks somebody with empathy and sympathy for how Parliament works to help him in his dealings.
It was said to me many years ago, when I worked on the Cook-Maclennan committee, "the problem is that Tony is not interested in these matters". There is every sign that since Robin Cook left the Government nobody is really interested in this. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that since the Government pretty well worked through the agenda that Cook-Maclennan supplied, they have become increasingly accident-prone in dealing with constitutional matters.
The Prime Minister surely has to learn that government by a No. 10 cabal is not the most effective form of government. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, gave a very pointed lecture some time ago about the weakness of Cabinet government under this Prime Minister. It
814
shows in activities such as this. The Prime Minister must realise that the handling of constitutional reform needs cross-party co-operation and a great deal more consultation than has been revealed today. Will the Lord President accept the heartfelt message from these Benches that we are the Liberal Democrats, and we are here to help you?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord McNally: My Lords, I have only to list my noble friends Lord Holme, Lord Tordoff, Lord Goodhart—our very own Willie—Lord Lester, Lord Phillips, Lord Carlile, and Lord Thomas. any one of whom could have given the Prime Minister better advice than was available to him last Thursday when he wandered into this disastrous minefield, this self-inflicted shambles.
We welcome the splitting of the triple role of the Lord Chancellor. Is this the end of the matter? Does the Home Secretary now have a permanent veto on the setting up of a department of justice? As regards the Scottish and Welsh responsibilities, does the Lord President agree that eventually this would be far better handled by a department of the nations and regions—another good Liberal Democrat idea?
The whole package of reform is needed for direction, not least for the urgent reform of this House. I watched the Prime Minister's performance today, and instead of running rings around Mr Ian Duncan Smith—which he did, and which is very easily done—he might have done better to take a leaf out of Lord Whitelaw's book. He would have said "sorry chaps; bit of a horlicks; learnt the lessons; will consult better in the future—and meanwhile, I have asked Jonathan Powell to get all the Liberal Democrat policy documents on constitutional reform, and I will read them".
3.32 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, even déjà vu is not what it used to be. I always listen carefully to everything said to me by any member of the Liberal Democrat Party. I found interesting the catalogue of grace and honour that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, read out as those who might be useful advisers to the Prime Minister: the one missing name was the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby.
Was Mr Blunkett right?
"Mr Blunkett maintained that the fundamental decision—to replace the Lord Chancellor with a new constitutional affairs minister and a supreme court at the top of the legal tree—was right".
I agree with Mr Blunkett. Your Lordships will not want me to waste too much time; I recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, demonstrated. that the old jokes are always the best, but in this House, above all, I suggest that we concentrate on substance, not surface.
I also witnessed the Prime Minister demonstrate his superiority in the House of Commons at Question Time. These are the questions he put. Three discrete

815
reforms are offered; first, the setting up of a supreme court, seen to be and wholly separate from this House; secondly, the voluntary abdication of political ministerial power to appoint—and to discipline—the judiciary; and thirdly, to invite this House to consider proposals which it may come to in its own way, in its own time, about appointing a presiding officer or Speaker. Throughout none of our debate have I heard any suggestion that those first two discrete policy proposals were wrong. I imagine that we shall he waiting a long time before we hear a reasoned objection to them. It was a rhetorical question in the Prime Minister's Statement that he doubted whether any political party likely to come to power would ever seek to reverse these charges.
Noble Lords: Changes.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for that correction.
We do not really want any more knockabout about the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales, do we? If we do. I will be tempted to bring out some quotations that I prepared earlier. After the 1997 elections—noble Lords on the Benches opposite will remember that—the Tories were left with no Scottish and Welsh MPs, and Mr Hague, the then leader, abolished the separate Shadow Cabinet posts of Scottish and Welsh Secretaries. Later, the post was merged with the role of Leader of the Commons, and held by Sir George Young and then by Angela Browning: so can we stop having silly jokes about "part-time leader"? It is interesting and amusing the first 12 times, but not after that. I have another quotation:
"It is clear that there is a requirement to retain the post of Secretary of State for Scotland but that it is a much reduced role".
That was Sir Malcolm Rifkind.
Now for the supreme court.
"I must accept that we would need a supreme court of the kind that the United States has. 1 believe that the Supreme Court has served the US extraordinarily well … I would have thought that something akin to the US Supreme Court would be a necessary adjunct to an elected upper Chamber".—[Official Report, Commons,1/2/99; col.653.]
That was Mr Eric Forth.
3.36 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I could hardly believe my ears, but am I right that there was no plain reference in the Prime Minister's Statement today that last Thursday, without any consultation, he announced his intention to abolish the historic office of Lord Chancellor? Of course Prime Ministers are entitled to make decisions designed to improve the machinery of government, but does the noble and learned Lord really think it proper for a Prime Minister to claim the right to announce the abolition of a great office of state without any prior consultation whatsoever?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, what the Prime Minister said—and it was worth listening to him in the
816
House of Commons earlier, for he repeated it—was that he was bringing forward proposals that would require statutory approval. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, knows as well as I do, because we were both at the Bar, that none of these changes to the Lord Chancellorship, and the supreme court and the appointment of judges—
Lord Waddington: This was my question. Why did the Prime Minister say last Thursday that he was going to see abolished the office of Lord Chancellor without any prior consultation?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, what the Prime Minister said was that that was his proposal. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and I, and many other lawyers in the House, and those who are not lawyers, know perfectly well that the changes to the Lord Chancellorship, the setting-up of an independent supreme court, and the devolution of political power for the appointment of judges cannot be brought about without legislative change. As the Prime Minister repeated today, they cannot go through without going through both Houses of Parliament.
I invited your Lordships to look at substance, not surface. Let us attend to the principle of whether these two reforms in the legal context are good. In due time, although we may be waiting a long time, we will have the defined view of the Opposition about these changes. We have heard the defined view, plainly expressed, of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on behalf of his party. We, as a separate and important House of Parliament, are entitled to know the Opposition view in principle, and the country is entitled to know it also.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords—
Lord Naseby: My Lords—
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords—
Earl Russell: My Lords—
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Cross Bench!
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, let us be sensible. Perhaps we can start with the Cross Benches.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, it is a very short question. In the Statement, if I heard it correctly, it is said that the Lords of Appeal will become a fully independent supreme court. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord will say in what respect the current Law Lords of Appeal are not fully independent? If it is because the Lord Chancellor is entitled to sit as a Lord of Appeal, which in my

817
experience he hardly ever does, would it not have been simpler to say that in future he should not so sit, in which case everything could have continued as before?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I am so sorry that he is suffering from what I am suffering from, I think—
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My voice has just come back.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am just about to lose mine.
Of course, the sitting of the Lord Chancellor, which is anomalous in the view of many of us as a matter of principle, leads to the view that we have not an apparently independent supreme court. I entirely accept the thrust of what the noble and learned Lord said. There still remains the fact that judges who sit in the House of Lords judicially can vote on legislation in this Chamber and speak about legislation in this Chamber. Therefore, they are engaging themselves in political activity. I accept that a number of the noble and learned Lord's colleagues—the noble and learned Lords, Lord Steyn, I think, and the Master of the Rolls—have specifically said that they will not use their rights. However, it is better, I believe, to have a principled constitutional settlement on these matters.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, the Leader of the House suggested that this was all planned and thought about. Why was it not in the Queen's Speech? What emergency has transpired in the past week that ensures that we have to decide all these matters within the four weeks left to us for sitting, subject to progress of business, plus the two weeks in September? First, what is it that drives that degree of speed in ensuring that the Lord Chancellor's role is dramatically changed? Secondly, how long is the present Lord Chancellor to do the job of the current Lord Chancellor and of the new Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not think that these matters were in the Queen's Speech. However, the necessary corollary of that—it is the trap which the noble Lord has laid for himself, and I am just observing that he has fallen into it—is that no government policy would ever be brought forward following a Queen's Speech. That is a manifest, self-evident absurdity.
Lord Naseby: What is the emergency?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: There is no emergency, my Lords. It is the fact that these proposals have been intensely debated and discussed by lawyers for at least the past 10 years. It is not necessary for there to be an emergency to bring about reform. I have never heard
818
such a proposition before. I think that, on reflection, the noble Lord will think that he made rather a poor point.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords—
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords—
Lord Renton: My Lords—
Earl Russell: My Lords—
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I think that we should take a Liberal Democrat Back-Bencher. I suggest the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord President may have been at some risk of confusing substance with surface when he referred to the opinion of Mr Eric Forth and prayed it in evidence in support of the Government's view that there should be a supreme court. I am not aware that the Government are advocating anything like the United States Supreme Court where the membership is subjected to bitter cross-party criticism and where a serious attack is currently under way on the political complexion of the court. I hope that he will make it absolutely plain that the Government have no such thought in mind.
Will the noble and learned Lord also please recognise that although the proposals for the future of the judiciary and the separation of powers may enjoy a strong lineage in the policy of the Liberal Democrat Party and in the opinion of judges in this country, to embark upon political reforms of this kind requires the consent of a much wider section of public opinion and to make these announcements without trailing them as government policy, never mind in any kind of pre-election manifesto, is to seek to bounce some of the most important constitutional changes and to put at risk their acceptance?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: No, my Lords. First, what I pointed out was that such material as is available about the thinking of the current Conservative Front Bench is to be found in the words of Mr Forth; other than that I have heard nothing. We are not suggesting that there should be a supreme court on the United States model. For my own part I entirely agree with the noble Lord's observations about the supreme court.
What we have done is perfectly reasonable. We have set out elements of government policy. I confine myself, as the noble Lord did, to the legal reforms. We have said that we shall publish before the recess, which is only a matter of a few weeks away, consultative documents, one for each topic. Following a substantial period of consultation, we shall reflect on what the advice has been from various quarters, including all sections of public opinion. We would then propose to bring forward legislation. I repeat: it cannot be put into effect without both Chambers having been consulted on it carefully. I still await from the Conservative Party an answer to the question of what

819
is its attitude to the principle of the changes. I hear the noble Baroness saying from a seated position, "What does it matter?" I cannot improve on that.
Lord Desai: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that this Chamber has twice had discussions, initiated by the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Patten, about the appropriate role of the Lord Chancellor and the necessity of a supreme court? I myself tabled a Question arising from the Guernsey case about the Lord Chancellor's independence in these matters. Does my noble and learned friend therefore agree that the Members of this House have had our own discussions? By and large, in the light of those discussions, we should welcome the changes, which are consequent upon the Human Rights Act.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. We have discussed these issues on many occasions. I agree with his recollection that often they have been at the request of the Liberal Democrats, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Lester. Many of us thought that many of the submissions they put forward had a good deal of merit.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, last week the Government issued a list of ministerial responsibilities under the new regime, putting the junior Wales Minister in the Department for Constitutional Affairs, but made no reference at all to the continuation of the Wales Office. The Scotland Office took down the brass plate, then put it up again. We now have an interesting and novel statement by the Prime Minister that the civil servants in those departments will continue as part of the Department for Constitutional Affairs, apparently solely to ensure that they do not move should the Cabinet Ministers change.
However, there is a more important and serious issue. Probably the most significant responsibility remaining with the Secretary of State for Wales after the devolution settlement is to fight for proper resources for Wales where that is not provided for automatically under the Barnett formula, and, secondly, to ensure that the legislative interests of Wales are properly looked after. May I have clarification? Is the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor and his department solely to ensure that the civil servants do not have the inconvenience of moving, or does he have a role in these matters? In other words, is the junior Minister for Wales answerable only to the Leader of the House of Commons, or does he have a dual responsibility? What exactly is the division of responsibilities? I think it rather important that we should know exactly where responsibilities lie.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Well, my Lords, it is not difficult. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, defines two of the important aspects of Mr Hain's work. The question of whether the civil servants report directly to the Minister but are nevertheless for administrative purposes attached to the new Department for Constitutional Affairs is by no means novel; there are many precedents for it. There is no difficulty at all.
820
Indeed, it is a necessary and desirable consequence of a successful devolution settlement in Wales that—as as time continues and the Assembly becomes more confident, more trusted and better regarded by public opinion—the residual roles of the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland should be reviewed. There is nothing odd about that. It would have been a manifest absurdity following devolution to allow two Secretaries of State to occupy full-time posts in the Cabinet.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords—
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have had three Conservative interventions and only one Liberal Democrat, so perhaps we may hear from the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I draw the attention of the noble and learned Lord the Lord President to the government of Scotland with no knockabout purpose. Will he remember that the existence of separate governments in London and Edinburgh has happened before? When it did, their relationship was managed through a very close personal relationship between the Earl of Mar, the Lord Treasurer of Scotland, and the Earl of Kellie, head of the King's personal staff in Whitehall. It was a relationship less close only than that which unites their successor. That type of relationship, though not full-time, was clearly identified, worked well and had a lot to commend it.
Will the noble and learned Lord also instruct the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, a little further on the West Lothian question? I once had the strange privilege of leading on a Higher Education (Scotland) Bill, which was never going to affect me. I said this gave rise to a West London question. Would the noble and learned Lord agree that so long as we have a Union and two separate systems of law, there must be either a West Lothian question or a West London question? Only those who have complained about the West London question are now entitled to complain about the West Lothian question.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think the noble Earl is a better pedagogue than I should ever seek to be and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has learnt and inwardly digested the lesson that has been put. It occurs to me that if there was once an Earl of Mar and once an Earl of Kellie, their relationship must have been very close.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in his summary of the Prime Minister's statement in another place, the Leader of the House said that the House of Lords is invited in its own way and in its own time to come to a conclusion on the question of speakership. Can we therefore take it that we will no longer be required to get all our comments on this proposal to the Leader by the end of this week, as he said originally?
Secondly, in that earlier statement he made, the Leader of the House said that people who talked about anything outside the question of the speakership

821
would be wasting their time. However, the issues are inextricably inter-related, because by abolishing the post of Lord Chancellor and taking away his powers, the Government will remove one of the two ex officio voices that this House has in Cabinet. That is a serious matter, which brings us into the whole of the rest. If we have to have the answers in by the weekend, we shall be like a patient on the operating table consulting with the surgeon as he has the knife poised. Could we not have had proper consultation before?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I tried to make this plain, but I failed. I think the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is worrying and troubling in vain. I suggested that my door would be open. It has been a rapidly revolving door. I had the most helpful submissions from your Lordships from all over the House—some in writing and some face-to-face. All of them, without exception, were well worth listening to.
I suggested on the last occasion that I would take soundings to see if there was a consensus for a way forward. It would have been absurd to suggest that everyone had to put their ideas forward by Friday. It would never have been accepted or put forward by me.
Because I knew that your Lordships wanted to be kept fully in the picture, I asked whether we could find a consensus about a way forward—in other words, process. I am most obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who put it better than I have.
I was hoping, if circumstances allowed—to use the words I used earlier—to be able to come back to your Lordships' House next Wednesday. I hope that reassures the noble Lord.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware how welcome the thrust of the Government's policies is? If he made a single error in what he said, it was when he referred to the fact that the issues have been discussed for the past 10 years. I would suggest it has been a lot longer than that. Many of us are absolutely delighted.
Does my noble and learned friend further agree that of course the opposition parties, particularly the Conservatives, are entitled to have a bit of political point scoring? That is all they have. Some of us are waiting to see what constructive views will be expressed by the opposition parties on these proposals. We want them and we want them quickly.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Dubs put it admirably well.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords—
The Countess of Mar: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Cross Bench!
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I speak as somebody who is totally neutral politically and who is well known to he. In view of the fact that I could not
822
be in the House last week and I got all my information from the radio and newspapers, perhaps I may ask the Leader of the House, whether he accepts that there was a terrible hiatus over Thursday and Friday.
Now that the dust has settled and information is coming out, that is ok. However, he must admit that there was a very bad presentation of the changes on Thursday and that we deserve to have that acknowledged instead of denied.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am so sorry that the noble Countess was not here when I made my Statement. On two occasions I said—I think I am quoting myself accurately—that there were feelings of "mortification", "disappointment" and anger and a feeling that we have not been treated with proper courtesy, and that if that were the position, I regretted it and I apologise. I do not think I can be more straightforward than that.

Defence Policy
3.56 p.m.
Lord King of Bridgwaterrose to call attention to defence policy and the future of the Armed Forces; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the first defence debate that we have had since the end of the Gulf conflict and the actions in Iraq. I know that your Lordships will join me in paying tribute to the outstanding work of the Armed Forces in that campaign.
Whatever criticism there may be of the Government, the wisdom of their actions, their use of intelligence or any other aspects, there has been universal acclaim for the commitment, courage, enthusiasm and good humour of our forces during that remarkable campaign. On a personal note, and I know I speak for every Member of the House, I welcome back our noble friend Lord Attlee from his own personal involvement in that campaign.
It is in some ways a watershed in defence policy and important that this House, with its accumulated experience and, I hope, wisdom on these matters, is extremely well able to contribute. As somebody who has been increasingly critical of the lack of experience of wider fields in another place in so many different aspects, I commend to your Lordships the Hansard of Thursday's debate in the House of Commons, which included contributions from a number of recently serving officers. There is now a greater strength on the Commons Benches of people who have served recently in the Armed Forces than there was previously.
I say this is a watershed in defence policy because I understand there is likely to be a White Paper. One of the contributors to that White Paper will undoubtedly be the Treasury. My concern at this time, when there will be important analysis to be made and important lessons to be learnt, is that we may commit a similar mistake to that which we have made on previous occasions—that is, trying to make too precise an

823
assessment from the analysis and coming up with what we think are very clear determinations in which the Treasury may see opportunities for further economies. The present plans are for a further reduction in the proportion of GNP going to defence.
There is a real danger. With great respect to the distinguished, gallant and noble Members here present, Armed Forces are not always their own best spokesmen. The Minister will accept that the Government are not over-endowed with Ministers with practical experience in the field of defence, although I recognise his own efforts to acquaint himself with the portfolio with which he was previously not familiar. The same is true, unfortunately, of the Secretary of State.
In that situation, there is a real danger that lessons can be misunderstood. I have fears about the Treasury because it has been said in this respect that the problem with the Armed Forces is that they always deliver. Unlike one or two of our other public services, they have a very high record of delivery. It takes place usually against the background of a complaint about shortages in budgets and difficulties over equipment and weaponry. And yet they deliver. That very easily breeds the feeling in the Treasury that those chaps are making it up, that they always over-complain and that they can always be screwed down a little bit more. It would be a very serious situation for this country if our Armed Forces were ever to find themselves in a position where they could not deliver and the Treasury was found to be wrong. That might then be too late.
We should not entertain for one moment the illusion that it is all over. I read in this morning's Financial Times of the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, the Secretary of State for Overseas Development, cancelling a trip to Baghdad, as it is too dangerous to go there. She referred in that article to the daily sniper attacks, to the daily casualties among American forces, to the worry that looting, which was erratic and chaotic, now appeared to be more organised and more measured in Baghdad, and to the very dangerous situation that exists there.
Returning to the question of whether it is all over, I draw the House's attention to the measured words of the Minister for the Armed Forces. On being asked of the likely length of time that we might be required to maintain our forces in Iraq, he said:
"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 to helping Iraq to become once again a viable and self-standing state".—[Official Report, Commons, 1246/03; col. 869.]
Those are admirable sentiments, but it was exactly the right answer. He expressed no idea how long we may have to be there. It was exactly the same answer as was given by a senior Pentagon official to a US Senate committee, which had asked exactly the same question about how long American forces were likely to have to be there.
One has only to look at the pressures on our Armed Forces and our commitments. It was only yesterday in this House that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, accepted the fact that many parts of Afghanistan are
824
in a lawless state and that the writ of Kabul does not run. The risk of reinvolvement of our forces in one capacity or another is obviously very real.
Only last week in the House of Commons, there was a Statement of a deployment to the Congo. Admittedly, at this stage, it consists only of engineers and Hercules transports, but we have previously entered into such deployments. We went into Cyprus under UN auspices in 1964 and we are still there. We went into Northern Ireland in 1968–69. Each one of those deployments has lasted more that 30 years. They were thought at the time to be short-term assignments, but they have continued, and substantially. There was a serious report this week of a substantial bomb—not the one which may have been intended for Londonderry, but the one which was apprehended in the Irish Republic. The report suggested that it was intended for the mainland and possibly for London. That is a warning that that situation is far from resolved.
Against that background, our first lesson should be about the pressures that continue to exist on our Armed Forces and the demands that may be made on them. Our second should be about the adequacy of our resources to meet them. In May last year, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, the former Chief of the Defence Staff, said,
"Recruiting targets are not being met; ships and regiments are not properly manned; training is being reduced; and equipment is ageing and often not available. As regards defence, there has been disinvestment. All that, 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 even greater.—[Official Report, 15/5/02; col. 311.]
At that time, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, had no idea that we would be deploying the scale of forces that we did in Iraq for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
With the greatest respect to the Minister, there quite clearly are serious problems of shortages in resources. They did exist in the campaign in Iraq. I would urge Ministers most sincerely and the Secretary of State, in light of his response recently to the Select Committee, that the Government discipline of instant rebuttal of any criticism that is ever made of them is not always the best approach, particularly when the forces on the ground know the true situation. Both Air Marshall Burridge and Major-General Peter Wall have indicated that there were shortages and problems. It is far better to own up—that theme was echoed a little earlier in this Chamber—and to recognise that if there are problems, it inspires greater confidence and boosts morale to admit them. My impression is that as the Select Committee continues its inquiries, a rather different story will emerge.
We still have 20,000 troops in Iraq. Some 25,000 have returned. I understand that some are still in temperate climate clothing and black hoots. If that is true, it is scandalous. I was particularly disappointed to hear another comment that the food was no good. One should remember the old adage about the Army marching on its stomach. One claim I can make, from the first Gulf War, is that our food was much better

825
than that of the Americans. We used to run out of supplies because of American forces joining the back of our queues to avoid eating their meals-ready-for-eating or MREs. That quality appears not to have been sustained.
The word "overstretch" has been echoed many times in your Lordships' House, but it is clear that with the pressures that exist now on our forces, and the commitments that they are being required to make, we are facing a very serious situation. The former Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, has 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 is to be something on the scale that we have done this time, it would have to be something that the government is convinced is pretty important because I would tell them it would take a while to recuperate".
That was the previous Chief of the Defence Staff. The current Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Michael Walker, said almost exactly the same thing, I understand, to a Select Committee last week. There is a risk in our present situation. We have taken on contingent liabilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we might find ourselves having to take urgent action at a time of difficulty, shortfall in Army numbers and pressures on resources.
My concern is about both the regular Army and its need not only to deploy but also to have the training and preparation for deployment, and the pressure also on the TA reservists, which has surprised your Lordships. We are still deploying fresh elements of TA reservists to Iraq. That is clearly putting considerable pressure on a number of reservists. Difficulties arise about ensuring that with the length of time that they are being asked to serve. When the Minister for the Armed Forces was challenged on this in another place, he made the point which I used to make: it is very important for people in the community to support the TA. It is very important to encourage your employees to serve and be prepared to serve your country. He gave the answer which I used to give: we are called upon at times to deal with threats to this nation. Many people believe that they joined the TA for the defence of their country.
I am not seeking to argue whether this was an improper use of the TA. However, when the TA gets involved in quite long tours of duty, it raises an impossible problem for many employers and TA reservists. In a most interesting speech, Dr Andrew Murrison, the Member for Westbury in another place, himself a former Royal Navy doctor, quoted a recent survey of Territorial Army personnel who had been sent to the Gulf. Eighty per cent expected their employers to take a fairly dim view of their deployment in the foreseeable future. Some 63 per cent of the very scarce medical and technical staff said they were thinking of resigning. That would be a very serious matter because in the recent deployments, TA reservists have been a critical and essential element and not merely an add-on. So in this challenge which our Armed Forces face, the need for adequate manpower levels is critical.
826
When we looked at the Options for Change programme, issues arose about the Gurkhas. The question was asked, if we cut down British regiments, should we continue with the Gurkhas? I should like to support noble and gallant Lords today who stress the importance of keeping an essential Gurkha element which gives opportunity for further recruitment. There may be a case for seeing if they can make an even bigger contribution than they do currently. Present day actions are of a different nature from those during the Cold War. These actions are very demanding. We expect our forces to move in a seamless way from a war-fighting role into a peacekeeping role; to be policemen at one stage, soldiers another—and even to be firemen, as they were in putting out Gulf fires. These roles do not happen by chance. This country is proud of its forces because they are well trained and capable of taking on anything. If they are stretched or over-committed on operations and do not have sufficient time in which to recuperate, they will not be. Both the previous and present Chief of Defence Staff are pressing the Government to ensure that our forces are properly equipped and trained.
I should like to move to the issue of equipment. An American general involved in the Iraq war remarked that there was not much difference in weaponry used in the first and second Gulf War. What was different was an extraordinary new capability, whether it be digitisation of the battle space or real-time battlefield intelligence. It was the ability to link this extraordinary battlefield knowledge with satellite imagery that made the US contribution so incredibly powerful. They had an overview of knowledge right down to the individual battle tank and armoured vehicle giving a complete picture of the battlefield.
However, the United Kingdom cannot keep up. We are the only nation that can operate closely with the United States and we have great difficulties. I know the Ministry of Defence is trying to enhance the network-centric and digitisation capability. My worry is that this will be expensive. My understanding is that the Treasury is prepared to see that investment being made, provided that economies of manpower are made to compensate. There was a discussion in another place—not denied—about possible losses of further regiments. In the world that we are getting into, one needs both. The challenges faced by our forces are not just to do with sophisticated organised intensive warfare. They are to have boots on the ground and manpower as well. I was never an admirer of the Strategic Defence Review. I am an unashamed admirer of the work done by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent of Coleshill and the then policy director of the Ministry of Defence, Richard Mottram, who led the Options for Change exercise. The SDR was foreign-policy led, with lots of good consultation and a precise idea from the Foreign Office of exactly what was needed. What turned up was something quite different. We thought we knew exactly why we needed the TA. John Reid assured me that the Government had specific roles for that organisation—chemical and medical work—but they are needed for infantry roles as well.

827
In a phrase I used 10 years ago, I believe the United Kingdom should be a force for good in a dangerous and insecure world. We are right to act in areas in which we would not previously have got involved. If we do that. there has to be a fundamental reassessment by the Treasury. It has to understand that if this is what the Prime Minister seeks of our Armed Forces, then there has to be a fundamental rethink of how we are going to invest, recruit, train and equip. We need to ensure that if we ask our Armed Forces to undertake this role, they have the capability to do it.
I believe this is a very important time. I am fearful that the wrong lessons may be learnt. My interest in proposing this Motion today was to give your Lordships the opportunity to challenge and discuss what are critical issues at a very important time for our country. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I am honoured to follow the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater. The expertise of the noble Lord in matters of defence and intelligence is unequalled. I have no military experience so I shall confine myself to things I do best: conceptualisations of the problem we have.
The noble Lord said that in the forthcoming White Paper the Treasury will make a contribution. I am sure he meant not just conceptual but a large financial contribution. I should like to highlight the economics of defence today. As the noble Lord said very pointedly, our security may be at risk, not because we are likely to be attacked by another country, but by somebody out there doing something which threatens our security. Terrorism is a very peculiar military problem. It is endemic, very often low technology, random, decentralised and hard to pinpoint. If the enemy fought with high-tech weaponry, we could track them down and confront their army with our army. But the enemy wear civilian clothes, use low-tech equipment and—this made possible by new information technology—are completely decentralised. Our security problem is therefore a worldwide and perennial one. It is, in a sense, a war that will never be completely won, but we must go on fighting.
That leads to another observation. During the past four or five years, not only has the nature of war changed; so have the tasks asked of our soldiers. I join the noble Lord in his tribute to their performance in Iraq. Those duties vary between concentrated high-level activity of a conventional kind—in Afghanistan, in Kosovo, in Iraq or in Sierra Leone—and low-level perpetual niggling small intensity activity, which currently occurs in Iraq. We must be capable of meeting both functions.
In the first activity, one may have an advantage of high-tech equipment and be able to substitute high-tech equipment for a few human souls. That is what the Americans rely on. But, for the endemic low intensity and long-run activity—as in Afghanistan and Iraq—we need bodies. I agree with the noble Lord that there is no possible substitution between bodies and equipment.
828
I hope that in the forthcoming White Paper the Government will think in a linked way about foreign policy, international development and defence. Again, as the noble Lord said, our soldiers are asked not only to perform military functions and police functions; they are often asked to perform social worker functions. They must be aware of human rights legislation; they must assist in humanitarian help. They have to be aware of local cultural sensitivities about mosques and temples and so on. They must not only be good at what they should be good at; they also need what one might call "multiple knowledge" training in order to perform their tasks. Often, it is not how soldiers act while carrying out their main tasks which leads to problems; it is that they may not have observed a certain human rights requirement or that they proceeded across a mosque in an improper way. That leads to much more fuss than it is worthwhile worrying about.
Defence policy should be thought of jointly with international development and foreign affairs. That could be put to the Treasury. I ask my noble friend one specific question; I am sorry that I have not given him notice. The Treasury made a special contribution in the case of the Iraq war. It was said that the figure might be £3 billion. It would be useful to know how much was involved and what proportion it represented of the normal budget of the Ministry of Defence. That will tell us what flexibility exists in this matter.
I want to say something about recruitment. The noble Lord spoke very tellingly about the problems that TA people experience. They are volunteers. If one thinks in terms of national security, somehow one considers the TA as a local activity. Would it be possible to devise a compensation scheme whereby if TA personnel are asked to be away from their stations for longer than, let us say, one week, employers would be compensated? It is a very simple proposition. It would apply in a number of situations, so why not when TA people are on active service, performing a valuable role and adding to the strength of regular soldiers? It saves our having to recruit a regular soldier. If the Treasury understood sensible economics—I have grave doubts that it does—it would say that that has a real economic value for us and we should compensate employers for such help.
There are difficulties with recruitment of regulars. If so, there must be something wrong with the pay or conditions. We should look at the job in comparison with similar professions, look at where young people of 17 or 18 go and find out what the comparative salary structures are and what we can do to help them be more willing to join the Army.
Furthermore—this may already be happening and I may not know about it, so I apologise if that is so—when people quit the Army I would like to know how much information is kept on file about them. It would be easier to recall to active duty, like a substitute TA, trained people in whom we have invested some capital and who possess the necessary expertise.
I welcome the debate. It always seems to be the case that more resources are required. I know that every government department thinks that more resources

829
are required. There has not yet been a Minister who said, "I require less money; you have given me far too much". It is important that we find imaginative ways of organising our defence force in such a way that not only do we get a good bang for the buck, but that we really are able to meet international responsibilities in the most humane and effective way possible. I am sure that when my noble friend replies he will address some of these issues.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I begin by adding my thanks to my noble friend Lord King for initiating this debate today. I wish to associate myself with what he said about the outstanding performance of our Armed Forces in the recent conflict. He pointed out that they always do us proud, despite the difficulties with which they are confronted. The trouble is that the Chiefs of Staff always say "Yes" whenever asked about the possibility of a particular operation. One day they will have to say "No".
I have not hitherto sought to intervene in the various debates and discussions concerning the merits or otherwise of the recent conflict in Iraq. However, I did have some modest responsibility for these matters many years ago, so I hope I may be allowed a brief intervention.
The Government's principal justification for the recent operation was the apparent possession by Iraq of a considerable arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. While I remain concerned that nothing of the kind has so far been discovered, that is not an issue that I seek to explore today. Intelligence information is very often less than specific and I am happy to accept, for now at least, that the Prime Minister truly believed what he then told us. But time may cast a different light on this matter. We shall see.
In making his decisions, the Prime Minister evidently attached the greatest importance to our relationship with the United States. I believe he was entirely right to do so. The strength of our so-called "special relationship" has long been the cornerstone of our foreign policy and defence policy. Without their strong support the outcome of both world wars would have been different. Indeed, the Cold War owed much to the strength of the deterrent that they were willing and able to deploy. On our own, we can field less than 10 per cent of their military might. More recently they were even willing to support us in a number of important ways during the Falklands conflict, for example, in circumstances which for them were not straightforward. So I acknowledge and recognise the pressures on the Prime Minister to ensure that we move forward very closely with the United States in these circumstances.
I would like to examine a different point. During my time at the Ministry of Defence we were often asked to give an undertaking that we would never be the first to use nuclear weapons. We always refused to give that undertaking. We would respond by saying that we would never be the first to use any weapons, save in
830
response to aggression. Thus it was that we were justified in acting to recover the Falkland Islands and later on in going to the assistance of Kuwait when it was overrun by the Iraqis in 1990.
As it happens, we had the additional cover of appropriate UN Security Council resolutions in both those cases. But it could be argued that such cover was not strictly required. The UN Charter clearly makes provision for acting in self-defence. The Kuwaitis and indeed the Falkland islanders were obviously entitled to seek assistance in defending themselves and we and the other coalition partners—in the case of Kuwait—were entitled to respond to that request.
But the most recent conflict was quite different. While the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General apparently advised that the operation was lawful, he was presumably relying upon the original Security Council Resolution 1441 relating to earlier considerations. None of us outside the Government is aware of exactly what he said—that remains confidential—but while I do not seek to challenge the view of the noble and learned Lord, I have to say that had I still been concerned with these matters, I might have been difficult to persuade.
Be that as it may, whatever may have been the legal justification, it was none the less a pre-emptive strike, not a response to aggression. To the best of my recollection, we have never, for the past 100 years at least, acted in that way. So the Government, rightly or wrongly, have embraced a wholly new doctrine with regard to the use of armed force, which I fear we may come to regret. May I therefore ask the Minister the following questions?
First, is the adoption of this new policy in accordance with the advice of the Chiefs of Staff? I know that is a rhetorical question. Their advice, like the advice of the Attorney-General, is confidential. But I wonder whether noble and gallant Lords who sit in your Lordships' House will have reflected upon that matter? Secondly, do the Government now say that pre-emptive military action is part of their policy? Is it the case that we are now not willing to say, as in former times, that we would never be the first to use any weapon save in response to aggression? Thirdly, if that is so, will the Government define the circumstances in which they consider pre-emptive action to be justified? Does there need to be a demonstrable threat to the United Kingdom, or does it need only to be a threat anywhere in the world, without necessarily affecting us? Are the Government prepared to launch preemptive action—as it would seem—simply to remove a regime with which we may all profoundly disagree? If that is so, are there not other regimes in the world at least as objectionable as Saddam Hussein's? I have to repeat: the Government may come to realise that they have unleashed a range of terrible options which we may all come to regret.
I shall make one final point. Up to now the Government have enjoyed the broad support of Parliament and the people in this matter. But we hear, from America at least, that consideration is apparently now being given to similar action elsewhere; for

831
example, in Syria or in Iran. I speak only for myself, but my continued support at least should not be taken for granted if such wider action is decided upon.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgewater, for introducing this debate. The Motion gives us a wide remit and many of your Lordships will speak very knowledgeably on the breadth of the defence canvas. For my contribution, I wish to concentrate mainly on air power. All three services over many years have had a part to play in its development and application. The foundation of the Royal Air Force 85 years ago stemmed from an appreciation that there was more to air power than the close support, by their dedicated air arms, of ground or sea forces—important as that mission was, and of course still is.
However, for many years before, during and after World War II, the ambitions and forecasts of the effectiveness of independent air power proved, when tested on the anvil of war, to be rather overstated. But that is not the same as to say that air power had no part to play. Then, as today, and for tomorrow, achieving and thereafter sustaining a favourable air situation over ground and sea forces remains a cardinal requirement for success in war. That cannot be achieved solely by relying on air defence. Taking the fight to the enemy is part of that overall air supremacy battle.
With the advent of the latest smart weapons, with the accuracy achieved with the aid of GPS, laser and other guidance methods, we are now on the threshold of realising the enthusiasts' claims. The United States Air Force is transitioning to an all precision weapons force. The RAF is taking rather longer to get there, but recent steps have been in the right direction. Storm Shadow, for example, is a long-range stealthy cruise missile for use against high value, heavily defended targets. Its range is over 250 kilometres.
That allows the launch aircraft to stand well back from the target area. Guided by digital terrain profile matching, on-board GPS, and an imaging infra-red seeker for terminal guidance, Storm Shadow's double warhead's first charge makes a small hole in the building through which the main charge passes before detonating. Used for the first time by No. 617 Squadron, the Dambuster squadron, on 21 March, it has proved to be a great success and has much impressed our American friends. The precision guided bomb, Paveway, is to be further upgraded, as the MoD has just announced, and will provide a night all-weather bomb for the RAF inventory of smart weapons.
One of the most impressive features of the application of air power in the recent Gulf War was the flexibility achieved in target-switching even while the delivery platforms were en route to their target areas. The noble Lord, Lord King, touched upon that point. The latest intelligence gathering from unmanned aerial vehicles and other systems, the ability to fuse and analyse this raw material with great speed, and then put it in usable form to those who
832
could act upon it, has never been so slick. Time-sensitive targets demand a special capability to find, fix, track, target and engage, and finally to assess the outcome.
These capabilities are playing and will play a growing part in modern warfare. There are enabling technologies to empower forces, and not only air forces, in this highly technical and pro-active field. I welcome the support that such systems have been receiving from the Government. I hope, that they will also realise how important to success is the GPS system upon which either the aircraft or the weapon, or both, depend. Galileo and the proposed European GPS system therefore deserve full support.
But all is still not as it should be. A Tornado and its crew were lost early in the most recent Gulf conflict to friendly fire. A mid-air collision between two Sea King helicopters led to needless tragic loss of life, as well as depriving the fleet of important protection.
Those and other blue-on-blue tragedies underline the importance of training and good preparation for war. In peacetime there is constant pressure to reduce and limit training time and related activities. Budget pressures restrict flying hours and seagoing time. Larger formation training and joint training are forgone. Those are potentially disastrous savings measures. We may pay a high price in conflict for such economies.
No amount of training can ever recreate the realities of live operations—even red flag training at its most demanding—but the obverse of that coin is that really good training will enable those involved to cope with the additional pressures of live and deadly operations in a more confident and assured way. The same applies for those on the ground or at sea as for aircrews. I hope that Ministers in the MoD and the Treasury will take that point to heart.
The most recent Iraq war was the largest deployment for the Royal Air Force since the Suez campaign almost fifty years ago. The timescale for the deployments was far tighter than in the first Gulf War, when Operation Granby deployment was spread over six months. Operation TELIC preparations were completed in a mere seven weeks. The Royal Air Force contributed more than 100 aircraft. More than 8,000 RAF servicemen took part, and nearly 550 of them were auxiliaries. They were deployed to airfields in no fewer than eight different countries in the region.
It took a remarkable degree of control and coordination to ensure that all those men and machines got what they needed when they needed it. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord King, and others: we should be proud of those servicemen and women, who achieved such results.
In the time available, I have dwelt mainly on the RAF's contribution, but all who took part won a remarkable victory. I hope that when the Gulf honours list is published there will be full and generous recognition of the supreme efforts made by all three services in their great military success.

833
Although we sing their praises—and rightly—there are, as always, dangers in assuming that the next conflict will go just as well. Where was the Iraqi air force? Fortunately for all three services, it never materialised, so our forces enjoyed a benign air situation. Apart from surface-to air-missiles and some other short-range ground-to-air weapons, the coalition forces met no air threat. But it would be incautious at the least to assume, even as good as coalition air power now is, that the opposition would not be much tougher if there was an effective air opponent.
Our future planning must take account of that, and we must provide for the protection of our forces on land, sea or air in any future conflict. Is there not therefore a serious risk in phasing out the Sea Harriers before the next generation of fixed-wing air defence aircraft is available to defend the fleet? Treasury pressures must be resisted.
Psychological operations in the Gulf War have not received much coverage, but have an interesting and possibly important part to play in future conflicts. I was intrigued to learn that almost 32 million leaflets were dropped on Baghdad and elsewhere. One, virtually useless, statistic is that that consumed as much paper as is needed to manufacture 120,000 toilet rolls—perhaps the one essential of which the Iraqi people were not short during hostilities. I hope that, in time, the effectiveness of such psy-ops measures and others employed will be assessed.
Much can be done. Propaganda is a far from new weapon, as we are all well aware, but communications media ranging from multi-digital TV channels to mobile phones, provide an explosion of visual and aural receivers which should be exploitable in aid of one's cause, without the political concerns of collateral damage or innocent civilian casualties. Will it continue to be the Cinderella of our capability improvement programmes? It is worth the much harder look that I hope it is now receiving than it has ever enjoyed in the past.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords are grateful, as I am, to the noble Lord, Lord King, for his initiative in securing the debate, although it clashes with a visit that the All-Party Defence Group was to make today. However, it is an important debate, and I am sure that the noble Lord and every other noble Lord would stress the need to understand and appreciate the skills, experience and unmatched qualities of our Armed Forces, based on operations and commitments in a wide variety of environments.
Sometimes, the press are not good at recognising those qualities. They are good at listening to the odd disgruntled individual, who sometimes offers quite inaccurate information—as with the new rifle, which the press for quite a long time seemed to confuse with the earlier version; and with the Challenger 2, which seemed to be reviewed as just the same as the Challenger 1, deployed 10 years earlier.
834
But there is not, and has not been, sufficient public awareness of the various contributions that our Armed Forces have made. There is a very limited understanding of the outstanding achievement in Sierra Leone, or of the enormously successful deployment in Macedonia, which, I understand, went according to plan. That stifled conflict and made an enormous contribution to that part of Europe. It cost one life: the life of a servicemen from my former constituency—not the first one from that community; I hope that there will be no more.
There were few casualties in Iraq, considering the scale of the operation. Obviously, the problems are not yet resolved. We have not found weapons of mass destruction, but what has been found is the graves of thousands of people murdered by the regime that has been overthrown.
Perhaps the lot of our servicemen in Basra today, or of the Americans in Baghdad, would have been easier if there had not been the encouragement of the Shi'ites and the Kurds to rise in some sort of revolt in 1990, only to be put down in large and horrifying numbers. That did not help those who entered southern or northern Iraq a few weeks ago.
However, it is early days. We have not found weapons of mass destruction; we have not yet found Saddam Hussein. But we know that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He used them in large quantities against the Iranian army; he certainly used them horrifyingly in his own country. He was certainly seeking to obtain weapons of delivery; unmanned aircraft have been found. They do not need to be large to be able to carry a couple of pounds of disease or toxin of various kinds.
Our troops were therefore deployed—all right, in pre-emptive action, as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said—on the basis that, sooner or later, action would have to be taken to prevent some developing new alliance between Saddam Hussein and the forces that still threaten the civilised world today. I noted the reported comments of the head of the secret service earlier this week.
At the same time, we must recognise, as have other noble Lords, that since the first Gulf war there has been a change, in that there was a greater reliance on precision weaponry. That is essential. It is no longer tolerable in this world to be spraying weapons of gross inaccuracy and large killing power. For that reason, it is noteworthy that the Royal Air Force first deployed its new weapon, the Storm Shadow, in southern Iraq. I am sure that my noble friend would confirm that only in the past few days the Government have taken a further step in that direction, regarding the provision of the Paveway precision guided weapon, which will further strengthen our capacity.
As far as I can see, and I visit RAF and military bases fairly frequently, morale remains high despite the considerable pressures that servicemen face. I found it rather displeasing, as I am sure did many other noble Lords, to think that our soldiers, back from one overseas commitment, found themselves in draughty drill halls providing fire cover. One hopes that that will not be repeated.

835
Those soldiers knew full well that they were in a draughty drill hall earning lower pay, getting far less leisure, and facing the prospect of going abroad in the service of Queen and country, while other people thought that they were entitled to a great deal more. If we are to solve the problem of retention in Her Majesty's services, we have to ensure that inequity does not bite too deeply.
At the moment, the services are doing reasonably well. Fortunately, the Royal Air Force is equipped with good aircraft, and the Government had the wisdom to acquire the C-17, which made the deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq much more straightforward. Fortunately—and I do not pay tribute to them often—the Conservative government listened to advice on acquiring the C-130J, rather than listening to the blandishments of our French colleagues, who assured the Western European Union in 1990 that we could have future large aircraft in full squadron deployment by 2000. We discovered that they had not planned the maiden flight until two years later, which was rather odd.
The Royal Navy is, in practical terms, the second most powerful navy in the world today. It will have the two carriers, which will be a considerable improvement, because they will be seaworthy for longer, which will allow Britain's strategic policies to be more reasonably achieved. The Army continues to impress; and despite the deployments, the absences, the demands, morale is much higher than one might have expected.
As I said, retention is a problem. Recruitment is important, but it is better to retain trained soldiers than simply replace them with new recruits who may not serve as long as we need them to. Pay and conditions are important. I am sure that Her Majesty's Government are well aware of that. A number of initiatives have demonstrated that, for example allowing contact between soldiers and loved ones to he facilitated.
However, there are other problems. If we have—and this is not looking too far ahead—a society in which virtually half the population go to university, we may find that we get half the recruits. We may also find that a larger proportion of recruits will expect—since they have academic qualifications that were not possessed by a large proportion of the Army a few years ago—to enter at a higher level. If we had not abolished the rank of field marshal, there would probably be a much larger proportion who would be looking for the baton in the knapsack.
There is, of course, a danger that, as the population becomes more highly educated, the services will find themselves with people who believe that they should be in the ranks of the chiefs rather than the Indians, so that there would be a surplus of one, and a shortage of the other. The services are far too intelligent not to have considered these problems, and they are far more intelligent than many of us, who would not be able to find the answers ourselves.
836
There is one thing that we could do. I believe strongly that we should, rather more positively than we have been doing, encourage the cadet organisations. It is no use spending a lot of money recruiting unsuitable people using television advertising.
I am involved with the Air Training Corps. I know a little about the other cadet organisations, and they provide the best recruits for the services. However, we do not provide sufficient facilities and encouragement to ensure that those cadet organisations continue to be motivated. A cadet in the Air Training Corps should fly with the RAF at least once a year. They are lucky if they do that today. Similar facilities should be developed with the other cadets. If we do not encourage the cadet organisations and those who run them, we run the risk of not recruiting the best people for Her Majesty's services. That priority should be critically examined.
The new chapter of SDR, published last year, was evidence that the Government are well aware of the risks of terrorism and asymmetric warfare. It is right that we should be relatively phlegmatic, "cool" in modern parlance, because we do not want people to start having nightmares and nervous breakdowns about the possibility of disasters, catastrophes and horrors of that kind. We must recognise that, just as the civil and military authorities are adequately prepared and have the proper procedures—I am sure that they have, they certainly do in my area—we must ensure that we have adequate personnel.
We cannot suddenly expand the Armed Forces. We must handle the Territorials and the Reservists in such a way as to promote recruitment and involvement in those bodies. It may be that we must expand them in a way that would limit those serving on overseas deployment, in order to ensure that we have a number who are prepared to give more time than the normal 15 days and weekends to serve at home.
We are, and should be, grateful to the Reservists. However, we won a vote by one a few weeks ago, while the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, was away. I thought at the time that it might be a good idea to encourage other noble Lords opposite to join him. Let us hope that we will not have conflicts of this kind that will require such absences.
I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord King, secured this debate. I am delighted to join other noble Lords in paying tribute to the unmatched quality and fine service of our Armed Forces. One hopes that the Treasury, in looking at the purse strings, will recognise that we need to train, retain, and maintain quality. If we do not, there will be no European country capable of fulfilling the commitments that second pillar development is supposed to achieve.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater on securing this debate and on introducing it in such a masterly fashion, covering the main strategic issues that should occupy our attention. I shall not follow my noble friend down the path that he has outlined, nor the

837
noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath. It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, because one finds oneself in total agreement with what he is saying, including, in this case, his kind comments about the C-130J, a matter close to my heart in a former job.
I shall concentrate specifically and in some detail, in the time available, on issues that concern the reserve forces. I want to support and supplement the comments made by my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater. I declare an interest for the purposes of this debate as the president of the UK Council of the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association. I am principally involved with the Territorial Army.
Before I develop my points, I shall pay two brief tributes, because I do not think that they have yet been paid in the House. The first is to the late Viscount Younger of Leckie, my predecessor as president of the council. He was president of what was then called the Territorial and Volunteer Reserves Association; we have now changed our name. He was a distinguished president, and all involved in the council have already placed on record our thanks for his service. He was a distinguished Secretary of State, under whom my noble friend Lord Trefgarne and I, in a more junior role, served. He was always careful to elicit views, however misguided or ill informed. One always remembers him as a national service soldier in, I think, Korea for his valiant support for and defence of not only the Territorial Army but of units of the Regular Army in Scotland.
I also ask the Minister to convey on behalf of all my colleagues in the Territorial Army and the reserves our thanks to Dr Lewis Moonie, the outgoing Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State responsible for the reserves. We are sorry to see him go. He was always tolerant of those who asked for his time and support, and he was always interested. He was an excellent Minister. I join those who pay tribute to him and wish his successor, Ivor Caplin, the honourable Member for Hove, well.
We have just witnessed the first major compulsory mobilisation of the reserves since the Korean War. Some 8,000 have so far been involved, as my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater said. It might be helpful to draw some of the numbers involved to your Lordships' attention. For the first part of Operation TELIC, some 3,500 reservists—I am not talking about the regular reserves, I am talking about the volunteer reserves—were called up. That mobilisation was a remarkable success. In the second phase, to support 19 Mechanised Brigade and 3rd Division, who were on roulement to support and replace units of 1st Armoured Division, another 1,500 were mobilised. As the Minister indicated in a helpful answer to the House on 11th June, probably another 2,000 to 2,500 reservists are in the process of being called up in order to assist in the reorganisation of Iraq and the relief of the crisis there. That is a total of 8,000.
There are four issues that I shall touch on briefly. First, there is the extraordinary importance of support from employers. All your Lordships would wish to congratulate all the employers throughout the country who supported the mobilisation of our reservists and
838
have welcomed them back, with very few exceptions, into the jobs that they left. That is a remarkable achievement, and we should thank them.
Although the mobilisation went well—thanks to the Reserve Forces Act 1996, introduced by the previous administration—a cautionary note should be sounded. If compulsory mobilisation on such a scale is to become not a frequent event but a regularly recurring one in the decades to come, we cannot take the support of employers in this country for granted. A new compact is required between the Ministry of Defence, the reservists and the employers. Employers need to be better informed, with better advance warning of what is required. Many of them need to have the role of reservists explained to them. We still do not have a compulsory requirement on reservists to inform their employer of the reservist's role in our forces.
I understand that we have only recently identified the employers of all our reservists, but, it is important that, in future, reservists should disclose their obligations frankly and fully to their employer. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, who is not in his place. As your Lordships will know, he is chairman of the National Employer Advisory Board, which does an excellent job.
The second issue is medical services. I regret having to say this, but I think that it is a bipartisan point, as part of the blame rests with the present Government and with past administrations. Hindsight is always a valuable commodity. We are almost in a state of crisis in recruitment—certainly in the recruitment of reservists who work for the Defence Medical Services. We are seriously under strength.
When we call up and send out reservists from National Health Service hospitals, we work on the assumption that there will be major casualties. Everyone will be greatly relieved that casualties were so light, but it is not surprising that many reservists, including nurses and consultants, coming from busy National Health Service hospitals found themselves—fortunately—under-employed. However, a change is required in our approach to the use of National Health Service staff in our medical reserve services. First, we should treat them differently from the soldiers. We should mobilise them and, once they have been mobilised, send them back to the National Health Service until the bullets start to fly. Unfortunately, many were mobilised and sent out and had to wait while, as they realised, many patients could have been treated in civilian National Health Service hospitals if those staff had been available.
There could be more "jointery" in the forces. Medical services should be purple. not just Army, Royal Air Force or Royal Navy. We could and should work regularly with coalition forces in operations, so that we share the medical services. Finally, a special agreement is required between the Ministry of Defence, the Treasury and the National Health Service, indicating the circumstances and arrangements for the mobilization, in particular, of senior consultants in National Health Service hospitals.

839
The third issue is the role of formed units. It may seem to be rather an arcane point to some of your Lordships, but it is important to the morale of our reservists. In the Army, the Territorial Army trains in formed units. They train together, and they should fight together, where that is possible. In the recent conflict, in the first two tranches of mobilisation, individual soldiers were called up, often leaving behind the senior NCOs and officers. That may have been necessary because of the urgent need, after the decision was made to send our troops to the Gulf, to make sure that we had sufficient reservists. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that, in the current stages, final stages or any future stages of call-up of reservists, we will try to call up formed units, however small. That is good for morale, and, when they return to this country, they will be applauded by their local community, as they deserve to be, and recruitment will improve.
The final and, probably, the most important point is about the total size of the reserves. Between 1997–98 and 2002–03, numbers in the Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Marines Reserve and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force have, by and large, remained stable. However, there has been a dramatic reduction in the size of the Territorial Army. In 1997–98, the established strength was 62,000; in 2002–03, the year that has just ended, the established strength was down to 41,000. That is a cut of one third. I hope that the White Paper promised for the autumn will deal with the central issue of the size of the Territorial Army. The role—combat support—is right, and there are many specialist functions that the Territorial Army can and should accomplish.
We need to think of the pressures that have arisen not only in the Gulf but in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Sierra Leone. Of the Armed Forces of the Crown in those theatres, roughly 10 per cent have been reservists. As my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater said, if the pressures on our Armed Forces continue in the decades to come, we must think seriously about whether we need to reverse the cuts that have occurred since 1997–98 and increase the size of the Territorial Army. As my noble friend said, in referring to the remarks made by the former Chief of the Defence Staff, the judgment is that, when it comes to further reserves that might be available for a major conflict post-Iraq, the larder is almost bare. We used a great proportion of our trained strength from our Reserve Forces during the recent conflict in Iraq.
So I believe very strongly that we need to move back towards the 1997 levels. I think that the increases are affordable, available and inevitable.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, for initiating this debate on defence matters. As others have done before me, I pay tribute to the courage and professionalism of our armed services. Over recent years we have sent them into many hostile areas—the Balkans, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq. Only last week it was announced that we might well be
840
sending a contribution to a multinational peacekeeping force to the Democratic Republic of Congo. And let us not forget the continuing and highly necessary military presence in Northern Ireland. At all times and in all situations, our Armed Forces are clearly at risk. The recent conflict in Iraq revealed just how incredible that sacrifice is, with 37 lives lost. We are all too well aware of the human cost of war.
While our defence expenditure rose this year, with the Chancellor adding some £3 billion to the defence budget, that was clearly in response to the situation in Iraq. By contrast, our defence expenditure has been steadily decreasing under the present Government. A decade ago, our defence budget was 5.3 per cent of our GDP. By last year it had fallen to some 2.5 per cent.. The Government's plan is to reduce this even further, to 2.2 per cent by 2005–06.
Comparisons with the United States of America are stark. For the year 2001–02. US defence expenditure was 3 per cent of its GDP, while in 2000 the United States defence expenditure per capita was 981 dollars compared with a per capita expenditure of 542 dollars in the United Kingdom.
The world has undoubtedly changed a great deal since the days of the Cold War. However, while traditional hostilities may have faded and old alignments fragmented and transformed, we are clearly in no position to sit back and relax in this new era of international harmony. At the turn of the century, talk was rife of a new global order. Certainly, only a matter of months into the 21st century we saw the true nature of this order.
The Government tell us time and again of the threats we all face from international terrorism. Unfortunately, and especially for the citizens of Northern Ireland, we do not need too much reminding of the continuing threat posed by domestic terrorism both from republican and loyalist paramilitaries. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, mentioned the huge bomb recently discovered in the Republic of Ireland, which may well have been intended for the City of London.
Noble Lords who travel regularly from the regions to London will have witnessed the heightened security measures in place at our airports and ports. Even here, outside the Palace of Westminster, concrete blocks have been erected to deter terrorist activities. It is somewhat ironic, therefore, that on the one hand the Government are urging the public to be cautious, to be vigilant at all times and to be alert to potential threats, yet on the other hand, they are reducing the defence budget and aiming to disband several armed service units. I simply ask this: is this the appropriate time to cut our esteemed forces and to curtail our ability to respond quickly and effectively to any situation either at home or abroad?
Our Armed Forces are already severely overstretched, and under-investment over the past decade has led to a decline in training, to ageing equipment not being replaced and to a severe shortage of recruits. We witnessed many of the problems that arose from overstretch with the outbreak of the war in Iraq. Supplies

841
were slow at getting to the troops, to the extent that many went without desert boots and mosquito nets for several weeks. We even heard reports of units having to share supplies with their American counterparts. The problem appeared to be adequately summed up by a heading in the Financial Times in April: "Army on the Cheap". Only a few weeks ago, as the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, alluded to but which is worth repeating, the former Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, said:
"If you asked us to go into a large-scale operation in 2004, we couldn't do it without serious pain".
We now see reports in newspapers such as the Independent on Sunday last weekend that the Ministry of Defence intends to cut up to 100,000 jobs in a bid to reduce the logistical support budget by £18 billion a year. I am pleased to note that Mr Hoon has given the leader of my party, Mr David Trimble, an assurance that the Royal Irish Regiment will not be disbanded—and I am sure that the right honourable gentleman is a man of his word. Other regiments, however, cannot be so confident of their fate; all we have been told so far is that decisions have yet to be taken.
Cuts are being proposed despite severe shortfalls in armed service personnel. As of April last year, the Army was short of some 6,000 personnel, the Royal Navy some 1,700 and the Royal Air Force some 800. Recruitment is also slow. It is clear that the Government are not doing enough to encourage young people to consider and, indeed, to take up a career in the Armed Forces. That shortage of recruits is causing problems further up the scale, in particular in the middle-ranking positions. As officers are forced to take on extra duties, their average number of hours on duty each week is now in the region of 89.5 hours. That simply is not sustainable over a long period.
Increasingly we hear of leaves of absence having to be shortened or cancelled completely. No extra resources are available to help take the strain and inevitably the stress of working under such conditions begins to take its toll. It is therefore hardly surprising that many choose to leave after eight, nine or 10 years of service. In turn that results in a great dearth of expertise, talent and experience.
I cannot emphasise too strongly the long-term nature of this problem. With a gap in middle management and an equally worrying gap in recruitment at the lower levels, along with proposals to cut back on many of our regiments, I wonder if the Government have fully appreciated the capabilities of our Armed Forces.
I shall finish by saying that it is somewhat surprising and worrying to find that our Government, who continually stress the importance of the United Kingdom's role on the international stage, want to curtail our ability to play that role successfully.
5.18 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, this country has a priceless asset, our Armed Forces. But the Government have serious problems of retention.
842
An example of that is the disturbing situation in the Armed Forces medical services, as reported in the Sunday Telegraph of 15th June. It claimed that up to 17,000 members of the forces are unfit for front-line duty because injured troops are either having to wait a year or more for treatment on the NHS, meanwhile losing pay and promotion because they are medically downgraded, or must pay for operations themselves. Their pay is not such that that is lightly done. How can the Armed Forces hope to operate a successful retention policy in the face of this? I hope that the Minister will be able to give the House some reassurance on the truth or otherwise of that report.
The virtual collapse of the Defence Medical Services was precipitated by disastrous decisions under Options for Change, including the closing of military hospitals, taken by a Conservative government. However in 1997, six years ago, the present Government committed themselves to act to save the medical services. They have not been successful. We are all familiar with the sorry story of the service enclave within an NHS hospital, with the NHS having priority claim on beds so that military orthopaedic patients who should have been in them were displaced by geriatrics. We know too of the disastrous drain of surgeons and specialists with the necessary expertise to maintain the Defence Medical Services. I hope that immediate action will be taken to establish a full-time reserve secondary care medical service, with trained military doctors and surgeons paid by the MoD, and paid well, who could work for the NHS but who would owe their first loyalty to the services. It is unacceptable that the men and women of the armed services should have to wait years, or pay themselves, for treatment for injuries incurred in the service of the Crown.
But my concern is not so much retention as survival. The draft constitution for the EU provides for a European Union foreign minister who will be responsible for conducting the Union's foreign and security policy, who,
"shall contribute to the development of the Common Foreign Policy",
and who shall apply his talents to the common security and defence policy under Article I(27) of the draft constitution.
Lest the House should think we are protected by our veto on defence from security policies we do not support, it is worth noting two things. First, the French and German foreign ministers have put forward a proposal that in the event of a national veto on a defence issue it will be the task of the EU minister for foreign affairs, who is to be appointed, to persuade the nation concerned to change its mind. If he does not succeed the president of the Council must try; if that fails, the president must take the issue to the Council for decision by QMV. We have been assured that HMG does not support this proposal. However, it is still there and it must be energetically resisted. Unfortunately, many defence decisions are the consequence of a foreign affairs decision. And foreign affairs issues, it is said, will increasingly be decided by QMV. That must be resisted too.

843
Secondly. one man is to be responsible for developing and implementing both the foreign policy and EU defence. That is an unmanageable task. Nothing is said, incidentally, about his relationship, if any, with NATO.
We have an excellent and chilling example now of the dangerous consequences of the ESDP, to which our defence forces are already to be exposed in the Congo. On 8th May the EU adopted a common position supporting the peace process in the DRC. On 19th May the UN asked the EU secretary-general to study the feasibility of an EU military operation in the DRC,
"given the urgent humanitarian need for the rapid establishment of a stabilization force in the hurl region",
the UN Uruguayan contingent having proved inadequate either to protect the people, or to control the fighting, no doubt because of the usual inadequate UN mandate for Chapter VI action only.
A joint action was agreed on 5th June authorising the launch of the operation on 11th June. Officially its mandate is limited to a short-term peace-keeping action lasting until 1st September 2003, designed to give the UN time to deploy the next UN contingent, the Bangladeshis. That force is to have a Chapter VII mandate, which is more robust. It is expected, according to the Security Council resolution of 30th May, 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, and the internally displaced persons in the camps in Bunia, and to contribute to the safety of the civilian population, the UN personnel and the humanitarian presence in the town".
All this in three months, starting from scratch with a force of some 1,500 soldiers including, we understand, 100 British troops, mostly in a logistical role. An advance guard of French troops began deploying on 8th June.
How is this force to operate? We need to ask these questions now, since the Government overrode scrutiny. The force is to be led, using the EU jargon, by a framework nation. The French have volunteered to be that nation, that is, to lead the operation, with the British contributing 100 men. It is believed that there will be an equally small contribution from Belgium, though not of soldiers. The operational headquarters is to be in Paris. So there is reasonable hope that urgent operational decisions will be taken there when they are needed.
However, the EU joint action provides that the Council shall approve the operational plan and authorise the rules of engagement. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether hose will be NATO rules of engagement and, if not, why not. Further the Political and Security Committee will exercise the political control and strategic direction of the operation and has the power to amend the operational plan, the chain of command and the rules of engagement. The EU Military Committee will monitor the proper execution of the military operation conducted under the operational commander and get reports at regular intervals. The chairman of that committee will be the primary point of contact with the
844
operation commander. Meanwhile the presidency" the high representative, Mr Solana, the operational commander and the EU special representative for the Great Lakes Region will co-ordinate their activities in implementing the joint action. Mr Solana will also act as the primary point of contact with the EU, the Government of the DRC and neighbouring countries, and others concerned with the peace process. The force commander will maintain contact with local authorities, the UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUC) and other international actors. There may also have to be a status agreement with DRC. Finally, the force commander in Bunia will have to report regularly to the Security Council of the UN through the Secretary-General on the implementation of the force's mandate.
We are speaking here of an operation, theoretically for three months, involving a force of well under 2,000 men going to a highly volatile and dangerous place for what will certainly prove to be much longer than three months. The French force commander has already said it is more likely to be a year. The force is to be run by committees composed of foreign and defence ministers, indeed by four committees if you include the Security Council. That will be, at the beginning, in the months of July and August. When crises arise, and they will arise, usually out of hours, are all these committees going to be sitting daily in the depths of the summer break in case they are required to take a decision? Who will be available on the telephone in Brussels or New York after 5 pm on a Friday?
The only good thing about this project is that in practice the decisions will probably be made in Paris by men who understand the situation on the ground, the risks and the military necessities. But they will also be made, so far as the politics are concerned, according to the private agenda of the French and the Belgians, who have considerable interests in the DRC. However it is reassuring that, as the Minister told us in a Congo Statement recently, there will be five British officers in Paris to advise. That is very reassuring. However I think they will have a hard task.
I have set out those details because I have seen the UN in action on the ground in the Congo and I fear for the safety of our troops, let alone the unfortunate Congolese whom we shall be powerless to protect. I have no faith that the commitment will end neatly in September. We shall then be enmeshed in a nasty, brutish war, all to be run by committee.
In Kindu, in 1961, nine Italian advisers for the UN landed from a light aircraft and were killed by the population. Their bodies were cut up and sold in the marketplace. Local habits have not changed; nor has the UN's inability to control the situation. I am sure we have committed our troops for the most honourable intentions, but there are simply not enough in the force to contain, let alone cure, a most dangerous situation that has been endemic for many years. We must not delude ourselves.
It is the more unlucky that we have gone in under the UN because the UN had 16,000 troops in Sierra Leone for a long time and failed to make or keep the peace.

845
The Congo is much larger and the situation in Bunia will not allow our troops to do what they do so well, to work with the people. That possibility will not arise.
This has come about because foreign policy decisions draw us into ill-thought-out force commitments. The Explanatory Memorandum actually says:
"The DRC is moving slowly towards peace".
If you believe that, you will believe anything. I also found it interesting that the Explanatory Memorandum says, under ministerial responsibilities, that the Foreign Secretary has overall responsibility for UK policy on the ESDP and on the Congo. Quite right. It goes on to say that the Secretary of State of Defence also has an interest. I would have thought he had the prime interest.
This minor operation is significant because we presumably volunteered to participate because, first, our foreign and development policy in Africa has committed us to active support of the so-called peace process in the DRC—a wholly admirable, fairly hopeless policy—and secondly because we want to be good Europeans and, incidentally, be loved a little more by the French and UN. So our foreign policy has drawn us into a military commitment so fast, and in such a way, that no veto, I suggest, would have been possible on military grounds. I strongly doubt whether any real opportunity was given to consider the operational plan, the environment in which the troops will be working or the long-term implications and the nature and value of the risk and the commitment. This is why we must be sure that the Government—and in particular the FCO and the MoD—are fully aware of the long-term defence consequences of accepting qualified majority voting for any foreign policy issue. It will have consequences beyond foreign policy.
The increasing pressures on our Armed Forces—of which a far more long-term commitment in Iraq is one—coupled with a number of problems of retention and, not least, the issue of money, make it vital that decisions to commit our troops should be taken only after careful professional consideration of the merits of the military case. The Government must never forget that our brilliant professional Armed Forces are there because they volunteered to serve—and, incidentally, to serve the Queen, as a symbol of the country—and to defend the realm. They are there because of commitment—and that must work both ways.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Inge: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, for initiating the debate. I also associate myself with the congratulations on the outstanding achievement of our Armed Forces. I include in that praise the wonderful achievement of the unsung heroes—the logisticians—who moved an amazing amount of equipment in a much shorter time scale than in the previous war against Iraq. I also pay tribute to the enormous contribution made by the reserve forces, who were an essential part of our deployment to Iraq.
846
The noble Lord, Lord King, referred to the importance of training. A number of people who took part in the war in Iraq have said, "We could not have done it without Exercise Saif Sareea"—an exercise which, as some will know, the Treasury was keen to cut because of its costs. I should add that we are a long way from seeing stability in Iraq.
I welcome the debate in general because there are important issues to be discussed. We need to reflect on the changing nature of conflict given the dramatic developments in technology; the implications of 11 th September 2001; the ongoing war against terrorism; and the heavy demand placed on our Armed Forces for war fighting, nation building and peace support operations. It is easy to forget how widely our Armed Forces are deployed as we speak.
We need to debate what are the United Kingdom's vital security interests and how to support them. We need a grand strategy debate. I sense that we have lost the connection between foreign policy and the defence capabilities needed to support it. In that regard, I support the concept of pre-emptive action. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has reservations about it but, in certain circumstances, it is a very important capability that our Armed Forces may need to use in the future.
As other noble Lords have said, the Cold War was unusual because the threat posed by the Warsaw Pact was clear for all to see and our national survival and national security were synonymous with the defence of western Europe. But that has all changed. The enemy today may not pose such a direct military threat but he is ruthless, irrational, difficult to assess and has the ability to pose very significant threats across the world. That is why I support the concept of pre-emptive military action on occasions.
Although our national security covers a wider field than only the Armed Forces, it must include a significant major military element. The Strategic Defence Review rightly emphasised the need to improve our capability to project and sustain—I emphasise the word "sustain"—military power. That is easy to say but very difficult to achieve, and very expensive.
Moreover, the Strategic Defence Review focused on the Middle East. It has become clear that we now have to be able to project power more widely. At the same time, the Strategic Defence Review has shown itself to be seriously underfunded following many years of underfunding. I know that there has been a significant injection of money, but that additional money will not make up for those years of underfunding.
The current review, or White Paper—which, of course, everyone will deny is a defence review—is likely to examine significant reductions in certain capabilities to find room for other capabilities. Of course we need to increase our investment in digitalisation, information warfare and certain other high tech capabilities in order that we can operate more effectively with the Americans and, at the same time, improve our own fighting effectiveness.

847
In addition, the Iraq war, despite its enormous success, showed up areas of concern in our logistic support capability and our capability to sustain a force overseas engaged in combat for a longish period. The month-plus of fighting in Iraq was a very short time in military terms. I should emphasise that I am not talking only about the lack of uniforms or shoddy boots—important though they are to the morale of the fighting man and fighting woman—but about major spares, artillery, ammunition and major assemblies. The concept of the "just in time" policy for operational logistic support is, in some areas, too tight.
I am glad that the mobilisation of the Territorial Army and other reservists in the main worked well. Clearly we could not have done without their support. They played an important and critical role. But, as other noble Lords have said, some of the administrative arrangements need to be tidied up.
I recognise that some change in the balance of capabilities may be necessary. However, the Armed Forces have already been hit in recent years by major reductions. The problem is—and has been for a number of years—that our Armed Forces are far too small for the many tasks that have been laid upon them. They remain heavily over-committed. They have responded magnificently in the Falkland Islands, Northern Ireland, Cyprus over many years, Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, the first Gulf War, Iraq and now the Congo.
I was amazed to learn that somehow we have slipped into supporting the French in the Congo without any clear concept of operations and without any clear reinforcement or exit strategy. I hope that we are not doing so to please the French rather than to bring relief to that sad country. I realise that our contribution is small but I believe passionately that the Government have a clear responsibility for ensuring that our Armed Forces are not deployed on dangerous operations without a clear concept of operations. I would be interested to know whether the Chiefs of Staff had any reservations about that.
No doubt the review will, yet again, examine capabilities such as the number of air defence aircraft, surface warships, armoured squadrons, infantry battalions and the need to bring in some of the additional assets to which I have referred. I worry that the assumptions on which any changes will be based will prove to be over-optimistic and, in time, flawed.
Options for Change reduced the size of the Armed Forces too far. The defence cost studies added to the problem. The Strategic Defence Review had some good elements but it was followed by many years of underfunding.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, as I said, I was an unashamed supporter of Options for Change but I understand why the noble and gallant Lord is saying that. We would be in a very different situation now if we had the manpower levels that we agreed in Options for Change. The problem now is that we do not have
848
those levels. We have fallen significantly below them, which has added considerably to the problems of overstretch.
Lord Inge: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that. The point I was trying to make is that at the time we planned Options for Change we did not envisage the world being quite as it has turned out to be and how far our forces would be committed.
Plans under both the Strategic Defence Review and previous studies for improvements to married quarters, barracks and conditions of service have slipped even further into the far distance.
I recognise that it is easy to make such remarks in your Lordships' House without being closely involved with the pressures and the planning. However, I hope that decisions will be made on realistic assumptions and not on wishful thinking. As I have said, we have not had a good track record in that respect. No sooner has one commitment gone than additional commitments have added to the pressure on our Armed Forces. I hope that we shall take a realist is view of how long we are involved in Afghanistan and Iraq, which will almost certainly get worse before they get better.
There can be absolutely no doubt that the commitments and resources of our Armed Forces are seriously out of balance with the money available and the size of our Armed Forces. Therefore, there is a danger of strategic failure at some stage in the future. I believe that it is wrong that the Armed Forces should carry that risk on behalf of the Government. The services provide a key element in support of our national and foreign security and defence policy. By underpinning those critical areas, the services provide a foundation for much of the Government's policy in the wider field of national credibility and prestige.
However, for political reasons, the Government are having difficulty deciding how important security alliances such as NATO and the woolly, insubstantial ESDP should evolve. I believe that we need greater clarity of thought and purpose. I accept that NATO has to change. Some very tentative steps are being taken in that direction. Because it will be particularly important for the new members who previously were members of the old Warsaw Pact, Article 5 will have to remain, but I sense that its importance will decline. In my view, NATO remains the only effective military alliance; and, whether or riot we like it, it is in some ways being undermined by ESDP because certain European countries have a very different political agenda. Equally, NATO must recognise that it needs to take on a world-wide role.
In conclusion, I want to say a few words about something very different—ethos, which I believe is a key element in military leadership. I am not sure that it is understood in the world of political correctness and management speak and spin. I like to think that our nation takes great pride in its Armed Forces and in their style and professionalism. That professionalism is supported by military ethos. In passing, I should say that I believe our attendants and doorkeepers here reflect exactly what I am talking about.

849
Ethos is an important part of leadership but certainly not of management speak, and it must be relevant to any organisation that professes to nurture a corporate identity. Military ethos is difficult to define. It is the spirit that motivates the Armed Forces and in the end makes men and women put their lives at risk. It is certainly not a policy, nor is it a science. It is a mixture of emotional, intellectual and moral values. It is about comradeship and team spirit, integrity and the high quality people with whom one is fortunate enough to work and serve.
It is also about tradition. People rightly scoff at tradition, if tradition is taken to mean that you never do something for the first time—but how wrong that is if you regard tradition as a standard of conduct handed down to you, below which you try never to fall. Then tradition, instead of unsettling you, will be a handrail to steady and guide you when the going gets rough. Tradition is also about recognising the importance that human beings attach to the sense of continuity, familiarity and pride in the institution in which they live and work. In that respect, I happen to believe that the UK's Armed Forces are a wonderful example.
I end with a quote from Winston Churchill, sitting at the time as a Liberal. He was talking about the Army, but it applies to all the Armed Forces. He said:
"The army is not like a limited liability company, to be reconstructed, remodelled, liquidated, refloated from week to week as the money market fluctuates. It is not an inanimate thing, like a house, to be pulled down or enlarged or structurally altered at the caprice of the tenant or the owner; it is a living thing. If it is bullied, it sulks; if it is unhappy, it pines; if it is harried, it gets feverish; if it is sufficiently disturbed, it will wither and dwindle and almost die; and when it comes to this last serious condition, it is only revived by lots of time and lots of money".
5.45 p.m.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, for introducing this debate. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, that Viscount Younger of Leckie was in my regiment in Korea. He was a fine, young platoon commander. He took a bullet very cheerfully and it did not seem to do much harm to his future.
On the question of veterans, in which, as the Minister knows, I take a great interest, I, too, was sad to see Dr Lewis Moonie move on or move away. I have not yet found him. I felt that he was just starting to get to grips with the problems of veterans. As a nation, we have a tradition of not caring as much as we should for veterans, and I felt that Dr Moonie was much on the right track.
I should like to come down to the lower deck and talk about soldiers, sailors and airmen. If the Minister does not already know it, he should understand that today there is some very definite resentment among members of the armed services that they are not getting a fair deal. The reasons are well known. Some noble Lords have mentioned them. As I understand it, the main reasons are that they are pushed around a little
850
too much, are not given time for proper training or recuperation, and do not see their families often enough.
Furthermore, they feel that they are not provided with the best equipment. It is always being promised. Radios are always coming this year, next year, not yet. It will be wonderful to have the Eurofighter, but that is not yet here. The great airbus, on which the Government are so keen, is still on paper. Like the noble Lord, I cannot understand why the C17, a much better aeroplane, is not bought and used more often. I have never met anyone in the Royal Air Force who is particularly keen to fly the airbus.
Reference has also been made to recruitment. I was amazed to hear that recruitment had been stopped a year or so ago because the budget had been spent. There seems to be no financial flexibility to bring forward some money to ensure that recruitment continues. The Minister will probably say, "All is well now"; I hope so. But if one cannot recruit, one cannot train. I heard that one regiment had 200 or so recruits on its books and was told that it could not take them because there was no money for their recruitment or their training. If correct, that is an amazing situation. I merely bring it to the fore because recruitment is vital. I put that against technical advances. One can have as much technology as one likes—by Jove we need it—but one always needs boots on the ground, matelots in a ship and flying pilots in the air, supporting the forces.
If I were in the Minister's position, I would look very closely at some of the high-tech equipment that is on order, which is costing the earth. Do we really need 250 Eurofighters? It is true that we need a hell of a lot of aeroplanes, because we are short of them; the Government have cancelled the Harriers and the Navy now has no aeroplanes at all.
I believe that the men and women of the armed services come first. In the same way, their discontent possibly stems from this latest business of supporting the nation by putting out fires. Some 19,000 servicemen were held to ransom by a union in time of national peril. The pay discrimination between a fireman and a soldier is really quite appalling. It is even worse now, of course, with the latest payments to the fire service. But it was not that so much; it was more that those servicemen wanted to go to Iraq too. All military personnel are sensibly aware of the perils of active service, but they all want to go. This was the main bone of contention, as I daresay the Minister knows.
On the whole, from what I hear, and, as the noble and gallant Lord said, it was very sensible to have had this training in Oman to start with, but we had never really trained for war. We are generally training for other duties. So far, it has to be said, we have not come up against a really tough enemy in mass. We have had skirmishes; I do not believe we have had a real war since Korea. By that I mean a battle, as I understand it, with divisions moving. We were very lucky in Iraq: look at our lines of communication. Everyone said we will keep them open by air. Luckily, most of the enemy had gone. But

851
you need soldiers for keeping the lines of communication open. And you need reinforcements, which has not been mentioned yet, because you could receive severe casualties.
One day we will fight an enemy who believes in what he fights for, in his leadership and in the politicians—so-called—who tell him what to do. It will be a different story then. If we do not train for war and the Treasury does not make available the funds to train for war—and we must find time to train a soldier for war—we will be imperilled, and we will not necessarily always win. That is another thing—we have been very lucky in our little wars and skirmishes. As the noble Lord, Lord King, said, they continue and we have to stay. We use all the forces we have and have to use the reserve forces. I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, and I speak as a former chairman and managing director: there is a limit to how long industry and commerce will support us. The situation needs very careful handling. The words of the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, are very pertinent in this respect.
If we need servicemen for the more peaceful operations we are meant to undertake in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and so on, it does not look very good to others if we do not have sufficient regular forces, with all the things they do, and have to call on reserves to help us. We do not get very good marks for that. It is wonderful for the reservists—they have a good time and good fun.
Coming down to earth is important at this stage with our Armed Forces. There is no doubt that they are underfunded for everything that has to be done. But I believe that the main things to deal with are recruitment, training and retention. Every effort must be put into them. There is not enough carrot. Many armies, when they fight, do not have to pay income tax. I do not think that the educational allowance for officers and NCOs has been raised for many years. I am thinking of little things. A soldier today has to pay for a meal. The nation has always fed its armed services. The little cuts hitting the pay packets of soldiers, sailors and airmen are increasing.
I am interested in this feeding business. The noble Lord, Lord King, said that we talk about marching on a full stomach. That is probably right, although many of us have marched on empty stomachs for quite long distances, generally getting something a bit later. But 1 have always found for myself and most of the soldiers I have been with that we fight a little more fiercely and much better if we are slightly hungry. That has always been an observation in my life.
Recruiting, training, retention, along with sensible, really needed modern technical equipment, and not forgetting the families, will all prevent the Government from having to cut the Army once again and saying as an excuse, "We can't get the recruits, so we will chop two regiments". That is absolute nonsense. I do not believe that the Ministry of Defence has really been concentrating on the fundamentals of recruiting a solider, sailor or airman, training him and keeping him. That, to me., is the most important thing.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, in a debate such as this, we are peculiarly fortunate in having expertise from every corner of the subject. We have heard the survey of the noble Lord, Lord King, over the whole subject. We have heard the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, speak on the Territorial Army, the noble Baroness, Lady Park, on the Defence Medical Services and the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, on the RAF. We are particularly fortunate in this House to have such advice and expertise. I wish in particular to thank the noble Lord, Lord King, for introducing the debate.
Throughout the debate. tribute has been paid to our Armed Forces. That is more than deserved, particularly when referring to the events of recent weeks and the campaign in Iraq. I underline the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, on what a man joins the Armed Forces for and what he hopes to get out of it. A campaign such as Iraq is what a man joins the Army for.
I was talking the other day to men in the battalion at Wellington Barracks who have been on public duties for too long. Too long a period on public duties bores them rigid, and the cost of a pint of beer can destroy them financially.
Throughout the problems of the Armed Forces runs overstretch, the most dangerous of all problems. This Government seem to have no hesitation in undertaking new enterprises without taking into account the question of where to find the men and the equipment. Unsurprisingly, the remarks of Admiral Boyce have been often quoted of late. If the Armed Forces are to undertake the roles that the Government seem to wish them to, and work that must be done is piled Pelion on Ossa, there must be money to do it. Treasury priorities are altering, but it seems never to give the Armed Forces the amount they need, and the proportion of GDP has dropped consistently.
A Bowman radio will not save a single ill child, but it is a priority nevertheless; that must be recognised. The Treasury must understand that it has to pay up. The noble Lord, Lord King, commented on the need for equipment and highly technical kit—but also on the alternative of keeping boots on the ground. That is a world-wide priority, because we believe that what the Armed Forces are doing in our name all over the world is a priority for peace and goodwill to all men. There is no doubt that we need men. It is not only the Royal Logistic Corps and its hi-tech equipment that is vital.
Today's newspapers reported remarks about the shortage of ammunition for the Royal Logistic Corps. It may be that they did not in fact need more than five rounds; nevertheless, they must be treated as soldiers, with the responsibilities of soldiers.
It is particularly worrying that the line battalions are so short of men. The possibility has been mentioned that the Government may cut down the number of battalions; they have virtually done so already. If a battalion must do any active service, it will have to

853
borrow men from another battalion to fill its ranks—a company from X regiment will join Y regiment and go to war together with it. The current shortfall is recorded as 6,510 men below the current, very low requirement of trained men, which has been falling steadily for some years.
We need to find out how to fill this void. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body records that it,
"shall have regard for the need for the pay of the Armed Forces to be broadly comparable with pay levels in civilian life".
That is not the case. The recent pay award of 3.7 per cent with average working hours of 54.5 per week is, on the face of it, respectable, but in fact, the hours worked per month do not compare favourably with the experience of firemen, for instance. The lowest ranks—privates—are paid £13,000, and they get more quite soon, but by comparison, policemen and firemen were paid much more. Hours of duty have also risen from 75.1 hours per week to 89.5, thereby reducing the effective hourly pay to a very low level, albeit above the national minimum wage. The hours that the men are working do not really matter, but it matters that they must pay so much, relative to their total income, for a pint of beer.
This problem can be divided between recruitment and retention. When recruiting, several things are required. The regiments need really good recruiting sergeants spread in and around their depots. If a man is considering becoming a recruit, he should also be able to talk to his mates who are already in the Army so that they can tell him how they are getting on. If, and only if, they say that they are happy and have decent money and things to do that they want to do, recruitment will rise.
Later, when your man has been there for several years, and might now be getting married, he is beginning to think—as the recruit may not—of his future, and the matter of living accommodation is much more important. Unless the kind of living accommodation he can offer his wife, and the price of cabbage relative to their income, add up, the wife will tell him to get out of the Armed Forces and to go somewhere he can get a decent wage and where he will be recognised. Those calculations will also involve death-in-service benefits, private life insurance, and pensions—none of which are currently adequate or give hope for retaining men. The Treasury has to throw in the money. Unless it does so, we shall not be able to provide for our forces.
I have one further point. The media's position in war is becoming extremely serious. If there is a reporter with every battalion, they will be able to relate events, and sometimes to do so in a rather curious manner. It is not helpful for the families at home to read such reports in the newspapers. Many of the reports are absolute rubbish, and that does not help. A problem encountered in the first Gulf War—the unavailability of telephones—may no longer exist because so many men now have their own mobile telephones, but a persistent problem remains—the lack of money.
6.11 P.M.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, once again, in Iraq, British servicemen and servicewomen have proved themselves in extremely difficult circumstances. Some have made the ultimate sacrifice. A squadron of my former regiment, the Household Cavalry, with light armoured reconnaissance vehicles, destroyed a great many T55s of the Iraqi 6th Armoured Division and the artillery of the 3rd Artillery Corps. Sadly, three lives were lost. I am aware at first hand of the enormous personal sacrifices made by families on these occasions. One of those lost was my cousin's son, Alexander Tweedie, a young troop leader, much loved and respected in his regiment.
Few would dispute that the British Armed Forces are among the very best in the world. Indeed, arguably on their back, the Prime Minister has been able to bestride the world stage again and again with such confidence. Now that the first ships, planes and soldiers are back from the Gulf, other political issues are already beginning to nudge military affairs out of the headlines, which reminds me of the words of Rudyard Kipling:
"O it's Tommy this an' Tommy that, an' 'Tommy go away';
But it's 'Thank you, Mister Atkins', when the band begins to play".
So before the events of the past few weeks become distant memories, with other issues increasingly taking priority for the Government's attention—and, critically, for public funding—it would be wise to ask whether, five years on from the SDR, and four years on from publication of the Armed Forces Overarching Personnel Strategy, the Government have lived up to their own rhetoric and discharged their obligations to our Armed Forces. Increasingly the answer must be, "No". The reality is that our Armed Forces are now suffering from acute and endemic overstretch; have been chronically underfunded in key areas of capability; and, worst of all, the men and women who man them are in danger of being taken for granted.
The Prime Minister has great ambitions for Britain's services to be a "force for good" around the world, but his Government have little appetite for facing the true costs. Providing for the security of their people is, however, a government's first duty; and because Britain is still a nation whose well-being depends on trade, they also have an acute interest in maintaining global stability. Moreover, as a permanent member of the Security Council, the Government have a duty to do so. Defence is not therefore an area where Britain can afford to stand aside even if it wished to.
The challenge that the Government must meet is to position our Armed Forces so that they can respond militarily to the known and unknown threats ahead of us, as well as provide us with continuing political influence with our most certain ally, the United States.
Above all, the UK must not get left behind in the RMA—the so-called revolution in military affairs—in particular, as my noble friend Lord King said, in the ability to acquire, process, analyse, disseminate and react to, often with precision-guided firepower, a mass of high-quality real-time information drawn from an

855
array of human and technological sources. This move to network-centric or network-enabled warfare is already transforming the nature of high-intensity operations, and also has huge potential against asymmetric threats and in what is likely to be an extended campaign against terrorism.
As part of the move towards network-centric warfare, US Central Command in Qatar, in preparation for the Iraq war, deployed the global command and control system. Running over a military version of the Internet called the secret Internet protocol router network, it gave the US forces the ability to know not only where they were, but also where all US troops were in real time, as well as the location of Iraqi forces that had been observed and identified by a large range of surveillance systems.
Soldiers in front line units were able to use Internet-style chatrooms to share time-sensitive information, with these chatrooms accessible to all levels of the military command structure. If we want to fight alongside the Americans in future conflicts, we will need to keep pace with them in doctrine and equipment procurement and be able to integrate with the Americans' information network. That did not happen in Iraq.
One word of caution needs to be sounded, for there is already much talk of reductions in manpower. While there is no doubt that the balance between, and within, our Armed Forces must evolve to reflect technological developments and changes in the threat, the presumption must not be made, however tempting to those holding the purse strings, that network-centric warfare will, of itself, generate significant savings in manpower. Experience has shown that there is no automatic trade off between technology and manpower m the military domain.
Could the Minister therefore explain the Government's plans for greater co-operation and integration between our Armed Forces and those of the United States in the field of network-centric warfare? Could he explain what impact network-centric warfare will have on the procurement programme and manpower levels?
Even a cursory glance at the nature and duration of commitments taken on by British forces over the past decade suggests that they are no less manpower-intensive today than in the past; indeed, they are arguably more so. The reality is that overstretch is as much a function of duration as of intensity; and peacekeeping, in all its guises, is seldom short term.
The situation is made worse by a shortfall of more than 6,500 trained personnel. More than half the Army was deployed on operations and other military tasks in the first quarter of this year. A quarter of the 5,000 troops sent to replace units that fought in the war were reservists, yet failures in the process for paying reservists have still not been resolved. Problems with pay and rations, too little time at home between deployments and a lack of the most basic equipment are all contributing to a collapse in morale in the Armed Forces. Unless urgent action is taken to stem
856
the impending surge in resignations of servicemen, trained at huge public expense, there will not be enough experienced people left.
If sustained overstretch is to be corrected, the inescapable conclusion is that either the size of our Armed Forces must be increased or the Government must take on fewer commitments—which the track record suggests is unlikely. Only then will a sustainable balance be achieved.
There is much else that can be done to ease the pressure. As a first step, a tangible commitment should be made to rebuilding the Territorial Army and making it more useable. The restoration of an adequate manning and training margin is long overdue and should be made a priority. Having an adequate "reserve" of people to cover for illness, extended individual training courses and ad hoc commitments is vital if gapping in front line units is to be avoided and careers managed properly. Shortages of the basics have been well, and deservedly, publicised. Those were caused not only by the MoD's policy of ordering equipment "just in time", but also by a combination of government indecisiveness and Treasury miserliness. There were 197 urgent operational requirements raised to provide the essentials for war fighting. Despite the Prime Minister's assurance that money would be released, it was not released soon enough.
The Challenger 2s were converted for desert warfare in time only because the invasion was fortuitously delayed by UN negotiations. The last armour upgrade was only fitted the day before the fighting started, thanks to the Herculean efforts of civilian staff working 18-hour days.
Body armour did not reach all the troops who needed it. Reservists deployed to HQ formations in theatre had to resort to taking their own laptop computers.
According to the BBC, the RAF resorted to deploying concrete bombs by the end of the war, because supplies of the explosive ones were running low.
A letter published in the latest Soldier magazine complains of a lack of small arms, AS90 and Challenger 2 ammunition, critical spares for aircraft and vehicles, NBC consumables, malaria tablets and anthrax vaccinations.
The lives of our servicemen and servicewomen must never be put at risk in such a way again.
Furthermore, this Government have consistently failed to address personnel issues in the Armed Forces. Damage is being done to the risk-taking culture, and thereby to fighting spirit and operational effectiveness, by the growing fear of legal vulnerability and the burden of red tape. This applies particularly to the Army, where tactical success—which increasingly has operational and strategic significance—depends on timely and bold decisions being made by junior commanders, who are often physically isolated and acting in the midst of uncertainty. Such decisions frequently involve risk—often high risk.

857
Mistakes will occur and must be tolerated. If they are to take these decisions, commanders must have absolute confidence that they will be supported by their superiors and by the judicial system if things go wrong; that is unless their mistakes are the result of gross negligence or their actions are palpably illegal, with full account having been taken of the circumstances in which the decisions were taken.
Families are as important to service personnel as to anybody else and there is no doubt that many service personnel feel disadvantaged in relation to people in civilian life, and they have good reason to feel that way.
The appalling state of much service accommodation has emerged as arguably the most important issue for service families, particularly in the Army, where accompanied service is more common than for the other services.
The relentless drive to reduce the number of married quarters—held empty to accommodate fluctuations in demand—has created inflexibilities, which make it increasingly difficult to ensure that families are housed in accordance with their entitlement. This, allied to the increasing, if subtle, pressure from the MoD to get service personnel to buy and live in their own properties, is in danger of creating a real crisis for accompanied service.
Things are no better for single living accommodation. Marne Barracks in Catterick has been described as unfit even for a tramp to live in. The accommodation regularly floods and has poor heating and rotten shower cubicles. Although new accommodation was promised two years ago, the Army Estate Organisation does not intend to start work on new accommodation until the 2004–05 financial year.
We have superb Armed Forces in this country but we also have a track record of taking them for granted. If our Armed Forces are to continue to attract not just the numbers required, but crucially also the quality required, we must make sure that they are trained and equipped to the highest standards and treated fairly. I fear we may be falling short.
An essential start point must be unapologetic recognition that service personnel constitute a special case by virtue of the unlimited liability that comes with their function: that they need to be different and have a right to be different. Yet taking that step, and following it through to its logical conclusion, seems to be a step too far for this Government.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Vincent of Coleshill: My Lords, I welcome this debate and I thank the noble Lord, Lord King, for initiating it. More specifically, I should like to use this opportunity to reflect on the evolving capabilities of our Armed Forces in a changing and far less predictable security environment.
Increasingly today, as we have seen so clearly in Iraq, the outcome of military operations is dependent on the timely application of emerging science and
858
technology, both to enhance the capabilities of our future weapons and equipment and to ensure that our forces at all levels have the knowledge and understanding required to employ them most effectively, often in unexpected circumstances.
Of course, this does not mean that the recruitment, training, leadership and professional commitment of our Armed Forces will be any less important in future. However, without the right tools to do their job and the informed judgment needed to use them most effectively, the Armed Forces could find themselves at an increasing disadvantage in future operations, not least because there is growing public and political expectation today that we will continue to minimise our own casualties and avoid unnecessary collateral damage. As regards collateral damage, we have been very fortunate indeed and should not take that for granted.
Historically, there is nothing new about this need for the right tools to do the job, at least in principle. However, I believe the ever-faster pace of emerging science and technology is giving far greater significance to this aspect of our future military capabilities.
We recognised this, for example, very late in the day in the 1930s when advanced research on aircraft structures allowed us to develop for the first time a new generation of high-performance monoplane fighters—the Hurricane and the Spitfire—which entered service in time for the Battle of Britain.
It is not widely recognised, even today, that without the advent of radar, which only became operational during the early months of 1940, those high-performance aircraft would have been far less effective, to the point where their own superiority could never have been fully exploited—possibly at the cost of the eventual outcome of the Battle of Britain itself.
Similarly, the defeat of the U-boats in the Battle of the Atlantic, which was so critical to the outcome of the Second World War, was ultimately dependent on their detection and destruction through the advent of radar and Asdic—the forerunner of sonar—and eventually our more effective conduct of operations which exploited those new technologies much more effectively.
Those examples, and an increasing number of other similar developments which have added so significantly to our military capability since then, have rested on a growing professional foundation of science and technology, which has been drawn on over the years to enhance the operational capabilities of our Armed Forces.
To this end, members of our Armed Forces and selected Ministry of Defence civilians have also in the past received advanced education in such matters, both to help formulate and acquire new and more capable generations of weapons and equipment and to ensure that we were able to employ them to best effect on operations.

859
Today, despite the increase in that element of our defence spending currently intended for our next generation of weapons and equipment, I find myself asking whether a number of longer-term trends are not now afoot that could perhaps unwittingly seriously undermine the defence science and technology base from which our enhanced military capabilities must ultimately he derived in future. For example, the former Defence Evaluation and Research Agency—DERA—has been largely sold off and transformed into QinetiC, where increasingly its research and development priorities will inevitably be determined by commercial pressures and interests, rather than our future defence needs.
In a wider context, an ever smaller proportion of young people attending university today are choosing to read science and technology-based subjects. Additionally, there is growing concern about the teaching in many of our secondary schools of subjects such as mathematics and physics, which are so important to the understanding and development of emerging science and technology today, particularly with regard to its military applications.
Within the new—or not so new now—MoD Smart procurement arrangements, which I welcome and generally support, there may also be signs of longer-term difficulties in attracting and retaining people of the appropriate knowledge and ability to serve in the Defence Procurement Agency. Under these new arrangements, projects are now controlled and directed within approved limits by about 140 multidisciplinary, integrated project teams, which have a vital role to play in delivering our future weapons and equipment programmes to time, cost and performance. Many of them have served us well since their formation, but they operate within a very flat organisational structure, with far fewer opportunities for the staff involved to develop their careers in a highly relevant way through service in our research and development establishments, many parts of which have now moved out into the commercial world.
The longer-term issue is that, having served us so well in the integrated project teams, career progression for staff will be seen to be very restricted and the teams' future manning with people of the appropriate quality and experience will be increasingly difficult.
Within the Armed Forces themselves, there is less specialisation on militarily relevant education in science and technology today. One cannot study secure and sensitive aspects of emerging military technology, such as electronic warfare, on normal university courses.
If, overall, my concerns about a declining science and technology base being unable to inform and deliver our future weapons and equipment requirements in the years ahead are justified, I fear that our Armed Forces may eventually find themselves without the capabilities needed to operate effectively in an increasingly unpredictable yet demanding security environment.
Sooner rather than later, an objective assessment should be carried out on the longer-term effects of the trends to which I have referred, so that in years ahead,
860
we are not inadvertently left behind with inadequate military capabilities, or an inability to employ them to best effect on military operations.
Against that background, I today reflect increasingly on the fact that most of the weapons and equipment now in service with the Army had their origin more than 20 years ago when I was personally responsible for their acquisition. They may in most cases—and I claim no credit for it—have served us very well, but we need now to lay firm and dependable foundations for their successors.
6.33 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I am not going to speak to your Lordships about boots that were of the wrong type or about trousers that get wet at the seat. I am not going to speak to your Lordships about the fact that while the Guardian embedded correspondent with the Household Cavalry could speak happily to her editor in London on her cellular telephone, the squadron corporal major could not talk to the squadron leader because the wireless sets were not functioning properly due to their being 10 years out of date. I am not going to speak about the fact that the Scimitar, excellent vehicle though it was, broke down because of its age.
I am going to speak because, 40 years ago, I was a subaltern in D Squadron of the Lifeguards. Consequently 1 followed that same squadron's fortunes in Iraq with close attention. They were lucky to have with them a journalist of exceptional ability who sent back stories of their exploits, which I read as if I could see the events unfolding before my eyes.
Today is Waterloo Day, marking the considerable achievement of the Lifeguards and Blues in destroying large numbers of French infantry. The last horsed action of the First Household Cavalry was to walk into Damascus in 1941. Their first motorised action was to move into Baghdad in 1941 as well.
At the beginning of the war in Iraq, there was a letter in the Daily Telegraph from the commanding officer of the Fusilier battalion that had been shot up by the Americans in the first Gulf War asking what had happened and what precautions had been taken against it happening again.
I know perfectly well that blue-on-blue has been happening since the Peloponnesian War. The Prussians took up pursuit of the defeated French at the end of Waterloo because they had already shot up, I think, a battalion of the 43rd. Blue-on-blue is not new, but we should be improving on it.
In turning to the Household Cavalry blue-on-blue incident, it is worth going through exactly what happened. All one really wants to know is why it happened.
The cavalry was carrying out a classic advance-to-contact operation. The squadron was moving within its own battlefield control line, which means that all the air above it was supposed to be controlled by their embedded American air control officer. They had been warned of dug-in Iraqi guns and of soldiers who were half-demobbing by dropping their uniforms, changing

861
into civilian clothes, climbing into white pick-up vans and grabbing the odd AK47 or RPL if the spirit moved them. The advance was going according to the drill book. A vehicle had broken down, had been recovered and was in the process of repair. The squadron leader's command vehicle had been bracketed by Iraqi artillery. The regiment went on to provide cover against the Iraqi T55s, which attempted to intervene after the air incident. I shall now attempt to describe that.
The vehicles had infra-red recognition and fluorescent panels. The third vehicle displayed a large Union Jack. The weather was perfect. Two A10 Warthogs came in extremely low. At one stage, the corporal of horse could actually see the pilot's face. The planes made two passes and shot up two vehicles and badly damaged another. There was very little excuse for that. Smoke was let off, as it should have been. The American air traffic controller was trying his level best to stop it, but it still happened.
Corporal of Horse Gerrard said from his hospital bed on the "Argus":
"All this kit has been provided by the Americans. They've said if you put this kit on, you won't get shot".
We know American Silhouette tanks. The same corporal of horse and practically every other tank commander in the British Army can recognise an American Silhouette tank at 1,500 metres. The Warthogs had come down as low as 50 feet to shoot up targets at 110 yards. I know that because my Guardian journalist friend found a Warthog website—it is a curse that the Americans have. On the website was a message from a technical sergeant in the Massachusetts Air National Guard which said, "Hi, it's Hog 166". The journalist told me that they have great pride in their achievements. They are slightly despised by the rest of the American air force because they do not fly smart and expensive planes or fly very fast or have Tom Cruise to act them. They merely fly very low and beat up tanks. When properly controlled, they are extremely good at it. What happened in this case was that they were not properly controlled.
I should like to ask the Minister for the details of the inquiry. Who is chairing it and will the results be published? If it is a British military inquiry, will it have access to American officers and the pilots concerned? If it is an American court of inquiry, will we be kept completely informed? We have to learn lessons from this. It is not good enough for the same things to happen in Gulf War I and Gulf War II. That is why we should be insistent on finding out the results of the inquiry. Hog 166 says:
"Let the guys that investigate do their job. If our guys screwed up, well then our courts will fairly be their judge along with the Almighty".
That strikes me as the attitude of a very sensible soldier.
I hope that the Minister will ensure that we know what happened and tell us the result. That way we learn all the lessons we possibly can.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, the Motion so thoughtfully and authoritatively introduced by the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, refers to defence policy and the future of the Armed Forces. I am not going to follow the noble Lord, Lord King, and other noble Lords on the subjects of over-stretch and recruitment problems. My contribution is of a more technical military kind. I should like to ask the Minister what military lessons have been learnt from recent operations which might affect decisions about how the Armed Forces are organised and equipped in the future. It is the future that I want to talk about.
Since I served as an infantry officer—it seems centuries ago—much has changed. Everything now on the field of battle and in the Army is virtually unrecognisable to me and there are far more technological developments to come. We have only just begun the first phases of a military revolution which will change the battlefield and the structure of our Armed Forces unrecognisably. We have learnt a number of lessons from various operations that have taken place since the end of the Cold War. We learnt lessons in Afghanistan and in the first operation in Iraq. However, it was from the second operation—Iraqi Freedom—that there is much to be learnt not only from the successful operations of our own Armed Forces in the Basra area, but more especially from the remarkable achievement of the American Armed Forces in their advance on Baghdad. There has been much criticism of the performance of the American forces in the post-war environment in Baghdad. Whether this is justified or not, it should not detract from the fact that the military operation itself was brilliantly planned and successfully executed.
These operations were regarded by many in the United States Administration, especially in the Pentagon, as a testing ground for a completely new concept of operations. As the Minister and other noble Lords will know, this concept is referred to by defence planners and analysts as EBO or effects based Operations. This new piece of jargon has all kinds of technical aspects. It means in effect the bringing together of armed forces—navy, army and air force—with all the resources of advanced technology, especially precision guided munitions, such as smart bombs, and so on, and information technology. Some of this was already evident in Operation Iraqi Freedom. A new generation of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems enabled the establishment in the theatre of operations of a joint fighting force of all arms with access to a common intelligence picture and under the direction of a real time command and control system. This is the "network-centric" operational concept to which the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, and the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, have both referred. Will the Minister confirm that our own defence planners are in close liaison with the Americans in developing this concept and analysing its effect on the organisation and equipment of our Armed Forces? As the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, rightly

863
said, we shall not be able to fight either on our own or alongside our American allies unless we keep up with such developments.
As I have said, perhaps one of the main elements in all this is precision-guided munitions—smart bombs and missiles. I should like to give an example of the impact of this technology. In 1943 it took a thousand B17 bombers dropping 9,000 bombs to destroy a specific target. Today the same effect can be achieved by one aircraft equipped with two laser-guided bombs. But, of course, before one can attack a target, it is first necessary to find it and pinpoint its position. This is generally called, in military jargon, target acquisition. The obvious conclusion from this is that future operations will involve not only precision-guided munitions but highly sophisticated real-time battlefield intelligence.
One of the questions for defence planners, therefore, is whether we need expensive platforms such as main battle tanks and aircraft carriers or whether we need a completely new concept in the organisation, training and equipment of our Armed Forces. I would ask the Minister to confirm that this is the direction in which our defence planners are moving and also to allay some of the fears voiced by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent of Coleshill, about the extent to which our Armed Forces are being trained to use this equipment.
Another lesson from the American advance on Baghdad was in the logistics field. In the past, it has always been thought essential to stockpile large amounts of supplies before a major operation of the kind envisaged in Iraq. Sixty days is about the normal military calculation. In the Iraq conflict, US Army units fought with just a few days'—two to three days sometimes —of water, food and ammunition, replenished by sophisticated logistics systems, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, as "just in time" logistic systems, once again based on information technology and digital communication systems. Does the Minister agree that we are on the edge of a complete revolution in military affairs in which very few of the old planning assumptions and tactical doctrines are valid?
My own experience is that the Armed Forces themselves are remarkably quick and flexible in responding to new ideas. They have not always received all the political support they deserve, but we have to accept that, as far ahead as one can see, there is unlikely to be any great increase in defence budgets or in resources devoted to our Armed Forces. Indeed, the reverse might be the case. It is therefore all the more important that we should exploit all the advantages of military science, such as smart munitions and information technology, to meet the possible military operations, sometimes called asymmetric operations, of the future.
It is important also that defence planners should be looking even further into the future, beyond the requirements of immediate operations. One of the most important factors in the next phase of the military revolution is likely to be the directed energy weapon. This
864
may be quite a long way in the future, but it is already technologically feasible. Directed energy weapons concentrate large amounts of energy at specific wavelengths and frequencies on the electromagnetic spectrum and then direct the concentrated energy at distant targets. To put that in simple layman's terms: it is like being able to generate a bolt of lightning and aim it at a specific target. When this is developed it will, of course, have enormous implications for the cost of weapons and for controlling the incidence of what is sometimes called "collateral damage".
Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he will be prepared to share with the House, as far as he can within the limits of security, some of the thinking of the Ministry of Defence about these matters. The events of Operation Iraqi Freedom have once again demonstrated that our Armed Forces—Navy, Army and Air Force—will always do what is required of them and do it with skill and commitment. It is important that the strategic doctrines and technological concepts within which they operate should take full account of the military revolution which has been developing for some time, and which had its baptism of fire in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
During the course of the debate, a great deal has been said about recruiting. I should like to conclude with a word about our young men and women of today. They are a generation to whom computers and digitalised technology are second nature, as they certainly were not in my young days. The Armed Forces of the future will be an environment in which they will be completely at home. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what plans the Government have for attracting this technologically aware generation into our services.
6.52 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am deeply grateful to my noble friend Lord King for this opportunity to discuss the crucial role of the Armed Forces in their highly professional and internationally respected contribution to the defence of our nation and the promotion of freedom and justice in many parts of the world.
I wish to focus in particular on the Defence Medical Services and endorse and expand some of the concerns raised by my noble friend Lady Park. The role of the DMS in ensuring the highest possible standards of care for military personnel is vital in the promotion of their well-being and to the maintenance of their morale. The men and women who risk life and limb are entitled to the best possible treatment, both in the immediate theatre of war and in all forms of follow-up care and rehabilitation.
However, there is long-standing concern about the shortfall of staff in the DMS causing problems of overstretched medical personnel. That leads to low morale and serious doubts about their future. According to the BMA, the DMS have, overall, less than half the number of trained doctors required and in some specialities the shortage of staff is even more acute.

865
This is not a new problem. In 1998, the Ministry of Defence in its paper A Strategy for the Future admitted that the DMS were,
"suffering a serious shortage of both regular and reserve personnel",
acknowledging that,
"we have only about 50 per cent of the doctors we need".
Therefore, the medical, manpower and retention review was specifically established to investigate these problems of understaffing and to propose remedies. However, there are still very serious shortages. As recently as July last year, of the 120 anaesthetists required by the DMS, there were only 23 in post; of 43 general surgeons, there were only 18; of 10 burns specialists, there were only three; and of 416 general medical practitioners there were only 190 vocationally trained, with a further 73 in training, but insufficient GP trainers to provide the training. Those figures are shocking and deeply disturbing.
In 2001, DMS staff were deeply involved in the Balkans, Afghanistan and in a major exercise in Oman, but to support these increased commitments there was no increase in military medical and dental personnel. There are now serious problems in the retention of medical and dental officers. The MoD's own DMS attitude survey revealed that 82 per cent of DMS doctors feel that the DMS are over-committed to operational deployments. That proportion rises to 94 per cent among consultants.
The war in Iraq involved massive deployment of medical reservists who filled those gaps with great commitment. But there must be a question as to the extent to which the DMS can continue to rely on reservists for several reasons. The first concerns the costs—professional and financial—to the reservists themselves. A recent letter in the Daily Telegraph of 10th June by the wife of a consultant surgeon described his disturbing experiences. When he volunteered for service in former Yugoslavia, he suffered financially with a reduction in salary and a loss of private practice. This March he was called up for compulsory service in Kuwait with just 10 days' notice. He appealed against that, partly on health grounds, but received another call-up notice while he was in hospital. His wife's letter concluded:
"The MoD needs seriously to consider how it uses the services of its medical reserves in the future or it will struggle to meet its objectives. My husband will be resigning his commission forthwith".
That is only one example. But it reflects concerns being expressed by many reservists, especially as the recent deployments are so extended and therefore so disruptive of their own professional careers. The BMA News of 17th May this year reports a survey conducted among reservists in the Gulf who claimed that, if the tour of duty were to extend beyond six months, 34 out of 52 of the doctors who responded said they would "probably" or "definitely not" continue to serve as reservists. Moreover, these long deployments abroad have a knock-on effect on the National Health Service which itself is suffering from staff shortages in both
866
hospital and primary care services. The recent MoD waiting list initiative required the ministry to call on the private sector as the NHS could not meet the demand.
Therefore, questions must be asked about the extent to which the DMS can continue to rely on reservists. I ask the Minister how Her Majesty's Government intend to reduce the dependence of the DMS on this source of support which has served it so well in the past but which may be less available in the future.
Before I turn to my own profession of nursing, I raise one other issue. I must confess that I am fascinated that the United Kingdom appears to be virtually the only country in Europe which thinks it can do with so few dedicated military hospitals. Only the Royal Hospital Haslar, Royal Naval Hospital Gibraltar and the RAF Hospital in Cyprus remain. I recently had the great privilege to visit Royal Hospital Haslar and was reminded of the special value of the service hospital. That ethos also survives very strongly in the military hospital abroad. But it is that special ethos which offers such an attraction in recruiting healthcare personnel to serve in the DMS. I have also visited the Ministry of Defence Hospital Units and it seems to me that they do not offer the same distinctive traditions and atmosphere of a military hospital. Therefore, by closing so many military hospitals, there has been a serious attrition of appeal for those who now have to suffer the disadvantages of service responsibilities without the distinctive benefits.
Of course I am aware of the development in Birmingham, but to date Haslar is the only home for uniformed members of the DMS in this country where they can enjoy the kind of environment for which they joined the services. Therefore, I ask the Minister how successful the medical manning retention policy has been in recruiting and retaining staff in the DMS. Will consideration be given to bringing back one or two military hospitals to provide that special ethos, characteristic of the Armed Forces, described so well by other noble Lords? And will there be the appropriate career prospects so essential for retaining the very dedicated and highly qualified personnel in the DMS who could so easily find more favourable prospects, salaries and career opportunities outside the DMS in the National Health Service and/or in private practice?
I turn briefly to the challenges confronting the nursing profession in the DMS. One of these challenges is the apparently demeaning, penny-pinching disestablishment of the one-star Director Defence Nursing Services post within the Surgeon General's department. This disestablishment cannot be good for the morale of the nursing services. It is particularly anomalous at a time when the Department of Health's proposals in Agenda for Change represent significant enhancement of pay and career development for nurses, based on the appreciation of the key role played by nurses in the provision of healthcare. There is a serious shortage of nurses working in the Armed Forces, especially in certain specialties. There will be an urgent need to consider the impact of Agenda for Change, which is likely to increase competitiveness in the labour market, with enhanced

867
career opportunities in the National Health Service and the private sector, compared with those remaining in the DMS.
Last year the Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service celebrated its centenary year. Many tributes have been paid. I hope that those tributes reflect an appropriate appreciation of all that the QUARNNS and the other nursing services have to offer to the DMS, and that changing opportunities in the NHS for nursing staff in both clinical and managerial posts will be reflected in the DMS. Would the Minister consider the reinstatement of at least one one-star appointment to the nursing services in the DMS as a recognition of the centrality of nursing in the provision of healthcare in the Armed Forces?
Although I have highlighted the role of the medical, dental and nursing professions, I also pay tribute to the medical services officers, to other ranks, ratings and airmen without whose superb services the DMS could not function at all. All your Lordships appreciate the crucial role played by all the medical, nursing and paramedical staff in providing clinical care in and for the Armed Forces. However, the evidence shows many problems that are causing a serious haemorrhage of key personnel, which endanger the viability of the DMS. Those who remain in the services will be looking to the Government for reassurance that their predicament is understood and that effective remedies are imminently forthcoming. I hope that they may receive some reassurances from the Minister tonight—for their sake and for the sake of the Armed Forces who defend our nation, our freedom and the freedoms of many other people in many parts of the world.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, it is appropriate that at this stage of the debate I should acknowledge that I am without doubt the least informed of the most junior officers present. I hold senior officers in great awe—and the noble Baronesses, Lady Cox and Lady Park, in even greater awe.
Sometimes one reaches the moment in one's life when one is not sure which way to think or move. I begin by recalling some of my mentors from the past who said: first of all think whether one thinks in black and white or colour. I do not know. Then, if one tries to think if something is black and white and one is not sure which way to go, take a blackboard and some white chalk and take a white board with some black chalk. Write positive and negative on either of them. Write what one thinks is right on one side and what is wrong on the other. Then reverse them. One may find oneself coming to a conclusion.
I shall try today to confuse myself, as I will your Lordships, by turning a few things on their heads and asking: why is there a Ministry of Defence after what has happened? Why do we not go back to calling it the Ministry of War, or, if it is politically correct, Ministry of Peaceful Affairs? That begs the question: are we going to war or are we out to defend the realm? If we are out to defend the realm, do we need to go to war? In that case we should have a Ministry of War, and if we are going to war abroad we are "at war".
868
I turn to Iraq. I was brought up to believe that one did not do things unless someone knew why one was doing them. If one was a junior officer one would never be told anyway and at some time or another one would find out from the lower-deck buzz. The question I would like to ask the Minister is: did we go to war with Iraq, and now that the war has stopped, are we at peace? I thought that we could not go to war unless we declared it on a country, and one cannot declare war on an "ism". Therefore, if one has not gone to war, when hostilities cease, one is at peace. The matter is difficult, because historically—and I like the idea of pre-emptive strikes, and in previous debates I have said that one has to show force, not "Shock and Awe", force—one has to let people know that one means it.
There would have been none of the argument about weapons of mass destruction 100 years ago. We would have sent a punitive mission to take out the regime—which is exactly what we did. I rather wish that we could have said that before. I remember being told by the Benches opposite that there was no relationship between Iraq and terrorism, that we were not going to take out regimes. Yet we went ahead. That is what caused me some doubt. I was even more doubtful when I listened to that remarkable debate in the House of Commons which was, at its best, debating whether or not we went to war. Having gone to war once, there is a worry that we might go to war again. But our prime duty must be to defend ourselves. I do not believe that one goes to war on terrorism. I believe that one defends oneself against terrorists. That is another matter, because with terrorists we are dealing with one group of people or even individuals.
I do not agree with the rhetoric in the United States that talks about "axis of evil", because an axis is a straight line and axles are circles. I do not believe in the propaganda of weapons of mass destruction. Nobody has ever mentioned the "supergun". I was fairly heavily involved in that. That was a wonderful weapon of mass destruction. It was visible; it was a great phallic symbol. Nobody bothered when they went out there to find out where it was pointing. No body bothered to recognise that the technology which made it as long as a football field was sufficient to be able to send a shell a long way away. Instead, we sat on a group of chemical weapons. They are not weapons of mass destruction. Sarin and many of the nerve gases have been used for years.
When the Russians were advancing upon Berlin, I believe that the Nazis—or Germans as they were then called—pointed out that they had V4 and V3 rockets which were weapons of mass destruction. The Russians were worried about the nerve gases such as sarin, which in those days were called "weapons of last defence" or "last resort". One put on a paper piece of kit, wore one's gas mask for four hours a day and all night, and that was not a weapon of mass destruction but a weapon of defence—or, more importantly, a weapon of fear. But are any of the toxins on the list that were described in the anti-terrorism Bill, or in the Government's papers, any worse than SARS? They were probably less fearful and less frightening. The worry that I have raised before is that if we are not careful, we frighten our own people into a difficult situation.

869
Just before the war began I went to the United States, as I do regularly, and I could not believe that on an "orange alert" every 10 minutes on television people were advised, miles away from Iraq on the other side of the world, to protect themselves with plastic sheets on the windows from such-and-such gas that would be released across the prairies. The fear that came across was worrying. Every party was there. Mr Blair was a great ally. He was going to defend America from weapons of mass destruction. When one went to the airport and tried to leave, one found that there were four and a half hours of queues as everyone was searched—unless one decided to go on a national day when the level of fear was so great that one could go straight into the airport and board an empty plane. The danger of terrorism is the fear that we create among ourselves, rather than the mechanisms of defence.
So when it comes to the question of how we defend ourselves or attack, I suppose that we must first consider defence equipment. The way to address that is by expenditure. The second way is to consider people. We have total forces of, say, 200,000. The United States has 1.5 million. The rest of NATO and continental Europe has about 1.5 million. But the British Commonwealth has 2.5 million. So Her Majesty can speak for 2.7 million members of armed forces, in one way or another. It is not me saying that; it is the Swiss and others saying to me, "You are a world power. Why do you not realise it? You have more influence than anyone in the world, other than the United States, which thinks that it has influence".
When one is not sure what to do, one returns to nature. The other night, I was talking to some of my noble friends and asking about birds, because I could not remember the stories of birds. I was reminded that a swift can fly at more than 50,000 feet and can fly to the Arctic and back without refuelling. That led me to ask, "What is our bird—the British bird?" Actually, we have a lion. A lion roars, and the British lion held everyone in fear. What do the Americans have? They have a bald or a white eagle, which they regard as a symbol of freedom.
Your Lordships will know that when Zeus, Jupiter or Jehovah—or whatever he was called that day—was deciding who should be king of the birds, he said, "Well, it could either be the most beautiful, or I shall let you decide among yourselves". The commission of birds sat down and said, "It will be the one that flies the highest". Now, the little wren was disappointed about that, because it could not fly very high, and the eagle thought that it would win easily.
So the wren went up to the eagle and said, "Can I fly on your back when you fly high, so that I can see what is going on? I should like to be well-informed". They flew higher, higher and higher and the little wren said to the eagle, "Fly higher, get higher, get up!" As the eagle finished flapping, the little wren gave a jump of one metre. Although the eagle is called king of the birds, the little wren is called king of the nests.
That little wren can frighten an eagle, because the eagle screams when it sees the wren. I do not want to say that we or the Prime Minister, Mr Blair, are the
870
poodle—which is not an insulting word—of the United States; or that we, the British, must be the pooper-scoopers for the Americans, but we are a form of intelligent little wren.
If the one thing to come out of this is that the Government have persuaded the United States to devote more attention to Northern Ireland and Israel, that is a remarkable achievement. The world in which I have worked has been trade and finance. Usually, because I could not be successful in important countries, that was in the beat-up parts of the world. Yes, it was in Iraq, Iran, Libya, Algeria, north Africa and all over the Congo—wherever there was British trade potential, I was sent because I was not sufficiently important. But if I learned anything there, it was to look at us as they see us.
Although many people dismiss the Commonwealth, and will not think of the English language, which 750 million people speak as their first language and 750 million people as their second language, and which 750 million are learning, we could say to ourselves: is it not strange that in such events it is the English-speaking forces—the Australians, the Canadians, ourselves and others—who seem to turn out? What is our role? If it is to defend ourselves, we must defend ourselves not from a physical military enemy, but from the covert world of terrorism. That can be done only by increasingly greater intelligence and co-operation.
I do not approve of the continual demands for opening of bank accounts and so on. That is another issue. But if, in defence of our realm we must take preemptive strikes or seek a peacekeeping role that must have international support and we need to go to war, I am not saying that we should split the Ministry of Defence into two—the Ministry of Defence and the ministry of war—but perhaps we should cost those two exercises.
We know that we are under-strength. That has been made clear. I have previously raised the point that when a regiment has only one battalion and that battalion consists of only 750 men, it does not really deserve to be called a regiment. Then one asks: "How shall we finance that?" Opposite me, I see on the Government Front Bench, with his wise eyes, the Samuel Pepys of the Labour Party. If it is worthwhile at this time, we should give it what it takes, no matter what it costs once we have costed it. Otherwise, we shall find ourselves in a permanent mess in which defence and war are mixed; in which fear is rampant; in which we frighten ourselves; and in which we will not know from where the danger comes.
That leads me to fables that I read last night by Aesop and La Fontaine. Your Lordships will recall that one spoke about mice. The mice were in council and said, "We must do something about that big bad cat". They said, "Yes, we have an idea. We will put a bell on it, so that when it arrives, we can run away". One of the council, the minister of defence, said, "Who will put the bell on the cat?" They said, "You; you are the minister of defence". He said, "Who will find the cat?" They said, "Ah, that is the job of the prime minister".

871
Where is the cat? We do not know. We are in such a period of uncertainty that I must sit down as a junior sub-lieutenant, recalling the words of that great admiral, Jackie Fisher: the role of the British Army should be that of a projectile to be fired by the British Navy against God knows whom.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I shall try to top that. I thank the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, for initiating this debate. Perhaps I may also apologise to the House for not being present for some speeches. I had to attend a meeting on the Licensing Bill, which is to come to your Lordships' House tomorrow morning.
I begin by echoing the tribute paid by the noble Lord, Lord King, to the professionalism and courage of our troops who took part in the recent conflict. It seems not many weeks ago that I stood up and said that I was against that conflict; I do not retract that position. With the benefit of hindsight, I can say that many of the scenarios that I painted, and many of my worst fears—expressed not just by me but by many noble Lords— have, thankfully, not been realised. That is all to the good.
However, one issue about the conflict that especially concerned us on these Benches was something raised several times in the debate, and by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, although he is not in his place. That is the issue of an exit strategy. That is still undecided. It cannot be forgotten that we have about a quarter of our Armed Forces—well, of our combat forces—in the Gulf at present.
Removal of our soldiers will of course rely on winning the peace. Although on 1st May, the President of the United States declared the end of major hostilities, it is depressing that 40 American servicemen have lost their lives since then, as have a large number of Iraqis— civilians and combatants. The situation is extremely volatile. Saddam Hussein is not in power, but we do not even know whether he is dead. As has been mentioned, removal of our troops and dealing with the issue of over-stretch will rely on the formation of a political authority. Of course, that issue is wide of this debate, but it is proving extremely difficult to undertake, and we wish all those who are undertaking the process of bringing about a political authority that can allow our troops to be withdrawn and the introduction of a civil authority our best.
That is particularly poignant because Sir Michael Boyce has raised the issue of whether we can undertake another campaign or whether our troops will need rest and rehabilitation for at least 18 months. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, raised the issue of the number of our number of commitments. He mentioned particularly the issue of the Congo. I support the Government wholeheartedly in our commitment to the Congo. Obviously, there is a difficulty here. I say that from the political and humanitarian aspect of our providing troops for a conflict that has cost so many millions of lives in the past few years.
However, from a military perspective, the exit strategy also raises its head. It is to be hoped that our troops will be able to pull out when the Bangladeshi
872
contingency from the UN is in position later in the summer. However, there is a real danger of mission creep in the Congo. I think that we will be in the Congo for a long time. It is a situation that must be ended, but it will take more commitment not just from Britain, but from a large number of European forces and other forces to bring that disaster to an end.
The role of the reserve forces was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Freeman. It is not my place to cover the ground that he has already gone over. Has research been done on the consequences of outflow from the reserve forces; where those people who, as a result of commitments being called upon, are considering giving up? Is this having a detrimental effect on the numbers in the reserve forces?
The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, raised the important issue of the number of men currently in the reserve forces. The situation is far more serious than is painted by the figures that are on the books of the reserve forces. Anyone who has been in the reserve forces—I served as an officer with the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers—knows that when one calls up one's troops for the summer camp, one is lucky if one in four, maybe one in three, or, in a good unit, one in two, actually turn out. Obviously in some units more will turn out. Nevertheless, this is a severe problem, because it leads to one of the issues that I am most concerned about. The people who we are calling on to supplement our regular forces are those trained individuals who are most valuable.
Although I understand the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, raised about formed units going out, I do not think that formed units should be sent out on these operations. Individuals are important. We should realise that these individuals are a scarce resource. In the remit, the particular individuals that the Minister will be looking at are vehicle electricians and vehicle mechanics. It takes a long time in the reserves to train those individuals up to a high enough standard. It is possible to call them out on the first time the reserves are called up. However, if we are there for the long run, I am not sure that we will have the supplies of trained personnel to fill those roles.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, raised the issue of the state of the medical services. Is it true that the situation is worse this year than last year? We have had a number of debates about this issue. The Government are aware of the problem. However, it is becoming a real issue because it is affecting the treatment of our service personnel.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, mentioned the article in the Sunday Times about service personnel having to pay for private health insurance to get treatment for injuries sustained on active service. Whether there is truth in the article is the subject for another debate, and I think that we will be returning to it.
Gulf War syndrome is pertinent at this time. Recently, Sean Rusling's case went to the High Court, which said that in his case there was an issue of Gulf War syndrome. The Minister is shaking his head. Obviously that was an appeal from a tribunal. The judge said that it would be up

873
to each individual to prove that he was suffering from Gulf War syndrome. Will that affect the pension rights of those service personnel who believe themselves to be suffering from Gulf War syndrome? In earlier debates, the Minister said that those incapacitated through illness will receive Army pensions. However, if they are trying to claim Gulf War syndrome and no other, it is difficult to categorise their incapacity. Will that be a case where they would receive a pension?
I will return another time to discuss the issue of depleted uranium, about which I am concerned. We do not have time to discuss it now. There is specific guidance about depleted uranium when it has been burned and turned into an aerosol. It will become an issue, not just for service personnel, but for Iraqi civilians, that the A-10s and tanks were firing depleted uranium shells into some of the ministries. After the conflict, looters set fire to those ministries, causing large clouds of burning material. Has research been undertaken into whether those clouds of burning material would disperse depleted uranium in a form that has been set out as a dangerous contaminant for our Army personnel? That would have a major effect on the wearing of gas masks in many areas in Baghdad.
I welcome the provision of the A400M, which is a valuable step forward. The C-17 has been mentioned. Has the C-17 in its present form been cost effective? I believe that it is under service contract. The mileage undertaken by the C-17s in recent years must have far exceeded what was expected.
I was going to talk about weapons of mass destruction, an issue covered by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in his speech. However, I have run out of time, and that will be discussed in another debate. I believe that we will soon return to many of the issues that have been raised in the White Paper, and the Government will bring forward a paper on the lessons learnt from Iraq. I thank the Minister for the helpful answers he has given in the many Statements he has made.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, this has been an informative debate clearly identifying the numerous concerns of your Lordships on defence issues. First, I express my sincere thanks to my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater for introducing the debate and for drawing so clearly to your Lordships' attention current and future problems on defence. I wholeheartedly support what he said.
I congratulate all our troops who took part in the Iraq operation for their courage, bravery and determination to win and to defeat the enemy. I know that all your Lordships are immensely proud of our troops, and they well deserve full recognition of the breathtaking success that they achieved.
However, there is one aspect which did not go well. Many of us thought that the BBC was biased in its coverage of the conflict both before and during the fighting. It gave unnecessary weight to the views of the opponents of the war and it seemed to take great delight
874
in presenting the gloomiest of views of what was going on. Its overall coverage was pessimistic to say the least. This sort of attitude not only undermines the morale of the troops, but also the morale of the families who are left behind. I can only hope that, in any future conflict, the BBC will not be so thoughtless and will show more sensitivity.
Today is Waterloo Day, the day that General Sir Hussey Vivian, my ancestor, and the ancestor of my noble kinsman Lord Astor, led the final successful cavalry charge that turned the French. Personnel matters relating to his men were uppermost in his mind. It is those matters that I shall cover today.
The Armed Forces are substantially underfunded. Unless improvements are made—especially to pay and conditions of service in the Army—there may be a dramatic departure of many officers and soldiers, even though retention and recruitment have been better this year. I shall illustrate the underfunding. The defence share of GDP shows no increase since 1997; it has decreased from 2.9 per cent of GDP in 1997 to 2.3 per cent this year.
There is serious concern about the overall balance of investment in the defence budget. Too much is spent on projected high-technology equipment and not enough on servicemen and servicewomen. Of course, we must not send our troops to war badly equipped or without up-to-date equipment, but it is essential that the Armed Forces be given fair, proper and relevant pay and conditions of service.
I am convinced that some of our servicemen and servicewomen are badly underpaid, especially when their pay is compared to the starting salaries of firemen, policemen and ambulancemen who receive around £5,000 more than the initial wage of our military personnel. For instance, a fireman receives £17,982 and a soldier only £13,045. On present planning, full manning in the Armed Forces will not be achieved until 2010. However, if significant improvements were made to basic pay, achievable if the Armed Forces Pay Review Body's terms of reference were amended to allow direct comparison to civilian occupations such as the emergency services, full manning could quickly be implemented. If that is not possible, there is an immediate case for increasing significantly the "X" factor to bring overall pay to levels comparable with those in the other emergency services.
In addition to the need for an increase in pay, there are other issues. The 5 per cent increase in the longer separated service allowance, although welcome, and a proposal to reduce the qualifying period from 18 to 12 months are not enough. Perhaps the Minister will explain why that allowance could not be increased to at least £1,000 per month tax free and the accumulated turbulence bonuses increased to £5,000. Ministers should be aware—I warn them now—that there is an intense feeling of resentment that servicemen and servicewomen are being taken for granted by the Government. They are convinced that they are not getting a fair deal. The Armed Forces are intensely loyal and will always follow their orders, but I detect that many of our servicemen and servicewomen have had enough. Unless Army pay and allowances are

875
realistically improved, the MoD should not show surprise if vast numbers decide to leave suddenly. Urgent action is required now—not tomorrow—to remedy the problems; otherwise it will be too late. The disintegration of our Armed Forces will have taken place.
I turn now to over-commitment. The armed services have been over-committed, and recently just under 60 per cent have been deployed on operations that cannot be sustained. Those military operations for all three services have been made more difficult because they were under strength and because units have been involved in a fire-fighting role in Operation Fresco. It will be a great relief to the Armed Forces as a whole that that strike is now over, which will allow troops to return to realistic training and once again concentrate on increasing their skill levels. There are two ways of reducing over-commitment: the first is to limit strictly the number of operations to the availability of troops; and the second is to ensure full manning by improving pay and conditions.
As at 1st April this year, the Royal Navy was 910 under trained strength; the Army was 4,850 below trained strength; and the Royal Air Force was 750 under trained strength. Although recruiting and retention have improved this year, there is a need for those servicemen and servicewomen now, especially in the Army. However, a ridiculous situation has been imposed, preventing more Army recruits than the forecast figures from joining up because the training organisation is limited and funded to the forecast number of recruits who will join and there is no leeway for surge capacities. That has meant that recruits, although fit to enlist, are not allowed to do so because there are no funds to pay them. There are neither sufficient bed spaces for them nor enough instructors to train them and give them the required care and attention in the training organisation. Furthermore, because of the new policy of capping the yearly recruit intake, full manning will now not take place until 2010. Will the Minister give an undertaking to stop capping the number of recruits so that we are able to process and train as many of them as can be enlisted to the agreed establishment?
I shall speak briefly about the possibility of future reorganisation in the Army, as mentioned in the defence debate in another place last Thursday. I would not disagree that restructuring may well have to take place if the Army is to conform to required new capabilities and a future defence policy leading to a heavy element, a rapidly deployable medium element and a light element. At this stage I do not want to be drawn into the many different arguments about which units might be reduced in the future, but I wish to make one point as forcefully as I can. Although units may be reorganised, there is no case whatever for reducing manpower levels. It makes no sense to throw away expensive trained military manpower when the Army is already below its trained strength by 4,850 personnel.
If restructuring is to take place eventually, all units should be brought up to their trained strength as quickly as possible. For instance, if the basic structure of armoured regiments is to be reduced to three tank
876
squadrons, the fourth tank squadron's manpower should be reallocated to the four armoured reconnaissance regiments for them to return to a four-squadron establishment. However, the possible restructuring should not take place until other weapon systems such as the Apache helicopter and the future rapid effects system vehicles come into service. That will not be until 2010, and that does not include slippage time.
I have no time to speak about the critical situation of the Defence Medical Services. However, members of the Armed Forces and their families feel that that is another area in which they are not being properly cared for and are being taken for granted yet again. I agree with every word that my noble friend Lady Cox and my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth said. I ask the Minister to explain what improvements are planned for the situation of the DMS?
Refurbishment and rebuild of single living accommodation and married quarters are a major retention factor in all three services. The fact that only about 50 per cent of both projects has been completed so far is regarded by the services as yet another broken promise and more evidence that they are not getting a fair deal. What is the new completion date for all those projects? Why is it not possible to bring forward the completion dates from 2012 for the married quarters in Germany and for all the remaining single living accommodation in the UK and overseas? I do not believe that it is impractical to bring forward that work and advance funding more quickly. I urge the MoD to take immediate steps to do so.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, emphasised issues relating to air power and air supremacy. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, focused, among other things, on how our Armed Forces were too small and on the importance of ethos. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent of Coleshill, expressed concern about the capabilities of our Armed Forces and the risks of lessening the importance of the scientific and technological base. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, wisely drew to our attention to aspects of the future. My noble kinsman, the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, made some telling points on realistic defence issues. They are all serious matters, and I ask the Minister to take particular note of what was said and to examine carefully what my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater said in his opening remarks.
I am aware that I have painted a rather gloomy picture, and I do not want to create the impression that morale is low. That is not the case; the opposite is the truth. Morale is high and servicemen and servicewomen enjoy the military tasks and the training that they carry out. However, I warn the MoD that there is a prevailing mood and feeling among servicemen and servicewomen that they are not getting a fair deal and that they are being taken for granted. Unless their pay, allowances and conditions of service are significantly improved and urgent steps taken to increase the defence budget, the Armed Forces may become so reduced that they will not have the capabilities to carry out their commitments. Immediate action is required. We must provide more money for personnel issues—it should be found now from savings

877
from the equipment budget. We must limit commitments; remove the cap on recruiting; stop imposing cuts on existing trained manpower; improve the medical services; and speed up significantly the modernisation programmes for single living accommodation and married quarters.
Many noble Lords have quoted today the warning given by the Chief of the Defence Staff that we would be unable to mount a medium-scale intervention again until 2005. Now is the time to build up our forces, for the Government to be seen to care for our troops and to give them the fair deal required on the issues I have raised. That should go a long way towards providing fully manned and satisfied Armed Forces.
We have superb and outstanding Armed Forces and I thank every one of them and their families for their loyalty, hard work, dedication, determination and courage. They have risen to the difficult challenges and overcome them; they, as usual, have done what we have demanded of them. Let us now give them a fair deal and provide the conditions they need to make their lives easier.
7.40 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, first, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, for having initiated this debate. It was about time that we had a proper defence debate in this House. He seized the moment, if I may put it like that. All noble Lords will be grateful to him for having done so. The debate, as such debates tend to be in this House, has been extremely wide-ranging and extremely expert.
Although in a friendly manner the noble Lord chided both myself and—more seriously, I think—my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for our lack of services upbringing, I have to remind him, in the spirit in which he made those remarks, that my right honourable friend has now been Secretary of State for even longer than he was himself the Secretary of State for Defence. The serious point to make here is that continuity is much appreciated in the military world. My right honourable friend has learnt a huge amount over the almost four years that he has been in office. For myself, I have now done two years which. if I remember rightly, was the length of National Service. So I feel as though I have begun to learn something about this field.
Secondly, I take this opportunity, from the Government Benches, to thank our Armed Forces for the absolutely brilliant way in which they have conducted themselves in Iraq. That is the most important aspect of the debate. I thank, too, all noble Lords who expressed that view. Our servicemen and women will know that this debate has taken place.
Although we have done so in his absence, let us now do so in his company. I take this opportunity to thank the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for his service to his
878
country. He illuminates this House by the fact that he himself served in Iraq. I thank him very much for that. It is good to see him back in his place, safe and sound.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Bach: I may not say that the next time the noble Earl asks me an unanswerable question.
I thank also the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, and the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, who praised and regretted the departure of my honourable friend Dr Lewis Moonie. I am not sure that I agree with the noble Viscount. Lord Slim, when he remarked that Dr Moonie is difficult to find. I cannot think of anyone easier to find. However, I say seriously that Dr Moonie was a wonderful colleague. Both I and the Ministry of Defence will miss him a great deal. Further, the serious points made about what my honourable friend achieved are well taken. I know that he will be delighted with what has been said in this House, and is widely shared.
Thirdly, I revert to the war. I must take issue, if only briefly, with the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, when he said that this was not a real war. I think I know what he meant, but if I may be so bold as to disagree with him, I believe that he is wrong. First, he claimed that the Armed Forces are not trained for war fighting. We do not think that that is right. They are trained very hard for war fighting. Secondly, he claimed that the last real war was in Korea. Again, I do not agree. I have to say that the Falklands war, the war against the IRA throughout the 1970s and 1980s effectively undertaken by the British Army, the conflicts in Sierra Leone and the conflict in Iraq were, in my view, all real wars. Indeed, if you ask British soldiers whether there was real resistance when Basra was taken, or American soldiers who made their way up through the holy cities on their way to Baghdad, I think that they would agree that this was a real war. So yet again we compliment our soldiers on what they have achieved.
Many comments were made about the budget. Of course I must remind noble Lords—and I do so with pride—that the defence budget was increased last year by a considerable amount. It was the largest sustained increase—that is, over three years—in defence spending for 20 years: a 3.3 per cent increase between 2002–03 and 2003–04. Of course opinions can be held over whether that was enough, but note should be taken of the fact that that extra money was put into defence and that the Treasury was happy and content to do so, in spite of all that has been said.
I was asked a specific question by my noble friend Lord Desai in relation to who is to pay for the war. I shall answer by saying that the Chancellor set aside £3 billion for the cost of the Iraq war which, put crudely, is around 10 percent of the defence budget. But defence is funded on a capability basis; that is, to be ready. As noble Lords will know, any costs arising from actually prosecuting operations are met from the Government reserve.
I shall move on. In the Strategic Defence Review mentioned at the start of the debate, now five years old, we laid out what we believed would be the most likely

879
and demanding operations to which we would commit our Armed Forces, and we planned our force structures and capabilities accordingly. We believe that the SDR produced a firm policy baseline, and recent history has shown that the SDR was right in focusing our efforts on rapid reaction expeditionary capabilities and proactive defence diplomacy.
Again, in a spirit of good humour, let me take to task briefly the noble Lord, Lord King, who told noble Lords that he preferred Options for Change to our Strategic Defence Review. Options for Change was an immediate reaction to the end of the Cold War. The Conservative government of the day were obviously concerned to find a peace dividend. The fact is that those who said that it was the end of history, that in effect liberal capitalist democracy would prevail and that there would be no need for armies, for wars or even for defensive action were absolutely wrong—but I certainly do not blame the last government for taking that view—as the past number of years have shown. Indeed, last night my reading matter was not the fables discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, but the memoirs of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. In one chapter she talks about that period and mentions specifically that she herself was concerned that the "end of history", as it was phrased by certain very clever people, was not necessarily the truth. She looked to the Gulf as an area where there might be problems in the future.
The criticisms of Options for Change have always been that the peace dividend was found by a form of "salami slicing"—taking a little from all capability areas to achieve savings. We believe that we have reacted better in the Strategic Defence Review, in which we decided what it was we wanted. We wanted mobility, "jointness", deployability and sustainability, and an ability to react quickly to stabilise a crisis, but still the ability to take on high-intensity war fighting.
All that has been borne out by the forward equipment programme which, to my surprise, was criticised in the debate. It seems to me that that forward equipment programme is one of the most demanding and ambitious that any government have put forward for many years. I think you would find many in the Armed Forces who would agree with that. I mention the new aircraft carriers, the Type 45 destroyers, submarines, Nimrod, ro-ros, Apache, A400M, and there are others too. Of course many of them were begun by our predecessors, and we pay tribute to them for that; many were begun by us. I do not think that that is where the criticism should lie.
The New Chapter we set in train after September 11th, 2001, sought to ensure that the UK had the military capabilities required to meet the threat posed by international terrorism, which we take extremely seriously. We are not surprised that the Americans take it seriously—I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon—bearing in mind the experience of September 11th. We found that some additional capabilities and adjustments to force structures were required, not least in providing a greater capacity for the volunteer reserves to respond to civil contingencies. We also found that planning was required to perform
880
operations beyond those three core regions that we had identified in the SDR: Europe, the Gulf and the Mediterranean.
Since the SDR we have deployed further afield to more places, more often and performed a greater variety of tasks than was previously foreseen. The pattern of operations conducted by our Armed Forces has also been much more complex than envisaged. Operations tend to be smaller, but they occur more frequently and often at very short notice. These demands need to be reflected in the way that our Armed Forces' structures and capabilities develop in the future.
It is not only the pattern of operations that has changed, but their very nature has also changed. There has been a shift away from the conventional warfare that we understood and were trained and prepared to face. The New Chapter highlighted the nature of the asymmetric threat posed by international terrorists. Such individuals, or groups of individuals, are more likely to be geographically dispersed, with loose command and control structures. This offers us just that fleeting target opportunity and requires forces that are agile and responsive and have the capability to deliver timely and precise military effect. We need to ensure that we give our Armed Forces that battle-winning capability and structure they need to meet the challenges of tomorrows' changing world. The New Chapter and the 2002 spending review gave us, we believe, a mandate to accelerate modernisation and change.
Our strike and stabilisation capabilities are major strengths but these need further enhancement, as does our capacity for rapid deployment. Strategic communications and force projection capabilities are therefore vital, especially strategic lift. Here I say how pleased we are that the A400M contract is at last signed and also, equally, how pleased we have been, because I was asked this question, about the C17s, which have proved invaluable in the last few months. Recent operations have placed enormous demands on these and other enabling capabilities that tend to be used repeatedly on every occasion, whether large or small. We have to ensure that these capability areas are strong enough to meet our needs.
One of the New Chapter's key findings was that future operations were increasingly likely to be joint and expeditionary in nature. Joint operations are a key strength of our British military capability, but we have to develop them further. This will help to maximise the impact of the resources that we have. A key feature of modernisation is that we must stop calculating defence capability purely in terms of front-line platforms and unit numbers.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in a remarkable speech, explained how we are on the verge, on the edge, even over the edge now of a new way of looking at all these matters. The potential offered by precision weapons is being opened up by new sensors and information networks. Ofcourse we still need sufficient platforms and units to perform multiple concurrent operations and to provide resilience, but we will

881
increasingly find that size really is not everything. We have to think in terms of effects—effects is the crucial word—that can be delivered by our forces in a number of ways. There are the traditional kinetic effects, which we are now able to deliver with ever-greater precision from a wide variety of platforms to attack and reduce the combat power of the adversary. Other effects that can be brought to bear are not just military in nature but are designed to influence the will of an adversary.
The key to successful effects-based campaigning lies in managing the cumulative effects and impact of such activities. The introduction of truly network enabled capabilities, NEC, is crucial to effects-based campaigning. NEC intends to link sensors, decision-makers and weapons systems so that information can be translated into synchronised military effect. Many of the components for a baseline national enabled capability already exist, or are in equipment plans. These include the sensors, such as ASTOR and WATCHKEEPER, due to enter service in the middle years of this decade, and strike assets, such as the Tornado GR4 armed with the Storm Shadow missile.
I break off to say that sometimes defence Ministers, like Ministers everywhere, have to keep their mouths shut. Just before the outbreak of conflict a very eminent Opposition spokesman from another place made the comment, how shocking it was that Storm Shadow would not be available to be used in the Iraqi conflict. How tempting it was to say something about that. I managed to resist that temptation and now we have seen just how successful Storm Shadow was in that campaign.
The network enabled capability is compatible—this was asked by many noble Lords—with the US network centric warfare concept and will continue to ensure crucial inter-operability with the United States.
Operation TELIC saw the conduct of a military campaign that has set new standards. The Ministry of Defence is actively engaged in conducting a full review of the lessons from the operation. Some initial lessons of this review will be made available in a public document before the Summer Recess. It is then intended to make a fuller report available to the public in the Autumn. We hope that this openness of approach will assist the public debate on defence.
Some of the issues concerning Operation Telic were mentioned, of course. As far as combat clothing was concerned, there were sufficient stocks of desert combat clothing ordered to meet the requirements. Let me say, taking up the hint from the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, that we acknowledge that there were distribution problems. I would have been amazed if there had not been some in theatre. That meant that we did not meet every unit's requirement for desert clothing, boots and body-armour. As a result some personnel experienced shortages. We will look, as any sensible government would, at that as part of the lessons learnt process now underway.
As far as urgent operational requirements were concerned, that was one of the great success stories of the campaign. We look at the circumstances of every
882
operation to see if we need new equipment for the specific operational environment, particular threats faced and potential scenarios involved. It may involve accelerating existing programmes, such as the temporary deployable accommodation, which is now being used by our troops there, or our new procurements against short timescales, such as the Minimi light machine gun that was so praised. There is nothing wrong with using urgent operational requirements. It is not this Government who invented them; they have been there for a long time. I want to pay a compliment to British industry, which provided the essential requirements at short notice, as it always does when called on to do so, and it should be said how much we owe industry.
As far as the equipment was concerned—here I do not want to take away from the lessons learnt, and we will learn a lot of lessons—some of it was criticised unmercifully following Saif Sareea, but it turned out, more or less, to have worked extremely well. Challenger 2 was staggeringly successful, as was the AS90. The SA80 was highly successful, and can any gun ever have been criticised more often than that? Personal role radios were successful—even the Americans took some of our personal role radios—and I cannot resist going back to Storm Shadow too.
We shall have to sit down and consider what were the successes—and if there were failures we shall have to own up to them as well.
It is too early to draw definite conclusions about the lessons learnt from operations in Iraq. I cannot deny that there are areas in which improvements could be made. But it is clear that we could not have fielded a force of that size and quality in such a short time without the development of our military infrastructure that has taken place since the Strategic Defence Review. In order to continue to improve this and other enabling capabilities, adjustments to our force structures will be necessary. This will involve taking difficult decisions about the configuration of our forces and platform numbers.
However, I stress that no decisions have yet been taken on the future force structure, including decisions on battalions from either the Royal Anglian and Royal Irish Regiments, despite press speculation. Nor have any decisions been made about aircraft or ship numbers. The White Paper in the autumn—which I am sure the House will wish to debate at some stage—will provide an updated statement of defence policy and explain our plans for the delivery of an enhanced capability.
Operation TELIC represented the largest operation by the UK Armed Forces since the 1991 Gulf War. We deployed the same number of personnel and combat units, including their equipment, but in half the time. I agree with the praise given by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, of the logistic effort that was made in order to achieve that. It clearly demonstrates the impact of improvements already made to our logistics infrastructure and to our strategic lift capabilities—but we still must do better.

883
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, was good enough to give me warning of the issue he wished to raise. Two investigations are under way into the tragic incident he mentioned. First, there is an official US-led board of inquiry, with UK representation from a Lieutenant Colonel with combat recce experience and a Flight Lieutenant with combat air support experience. Secondly, there is a Special Investigations Branch investigation. Both are ongoing and the reports will be published in full when complete.
Many references were made to reservists, especially in relation to medical issues. I pay a huge compliment to all the reservists, both those who went to Iraq and have come back and those who are still there.
As to the issue of Gulf War syndrome, in the judgment last week the judge specifically did not rule on whether or not Gulf War syndrome exists. He was very clear in his judgment. He stated:
"This court is not in a position to express any views on the merits of the dispute as to whether, according to current medical research, Gulf War Syndrome is or is not a 'single disease entity'. It has not done so by this judgment".
Our use of reservists is fully in line with the Strategic Defence Review. We are grateful for the 1996 Act, which proved to be very useful, particularly in regard to employers, whom we also thank for the sacrifices they make. I do not have time to say more about that.
We take on board the points made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Park and Lady Cox, in regard to medical issues. We have acknowledged—I do so again—that there are manning and equipment shortfalls in the DMS. These issues are being addressed and we are committed to fully manning the DMS. The DMS met all the operational commitments placed on it. This was achieved in part by the compulsory mobilisation of reservists. We are well aware of the problems that still exist in this field.
As many noble Lords have said, recruitment is presently going well. I shall not go into details now. We shall have an eye on the situation and ensure that that continues.
I do not have time to react to the very interesting broader geopolitical points made by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne.
I end by saying this: the Opposition have, quite fairly, criticised the Government on a number fronts, but when will the Conservative Party say how much more money it would spend on defence than the Government? Two years after a general election, we are entitled to ask that question. It is all very well to criticise the Government for not spending enough, but how much more will they tell the electorate they will spend?
Resources are finite. We need to ensure that we have the correct balance of military capability for our Armed Forces to carry out their tasks and to cope with a wide range of threats. There will be some painful decisions but as the strategic environment changes so our force mix needs to change in order to continue to deliver optimum effects—and I use the word "effects" deliberately. I have every confidence—as I know the House has—that the men and women of our Armed Forces and the Ministry of Defence will be able to meet
884
the challenges that lie before them over the coming years. The professionalism and dedication of the Armed Forces and of all those who backed them up contributed to an incredibly successful operation in Iraq. On behalf of the House, I congratulate them on their outstanding achievements.
8.6 p.m.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his usual careful and conscientious response to the debate. Let me answer the question that he posed at the end of his speech about the Conservative Party. I trust that any Conservative Party will provide what is needed for defence. The reason the question cannot be answered more fully goes to the heart of the debate because what is needed will depend on one's commitments. Those commitments have changed in the past week as the Government have decided to embark on supporting the French in the Congo. That goes to the heart of the problem.
I said at the outset that this House embraced many experiences. I had forgotten that it was Waterloo Day. The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, and his noble kinsman Lord Astor have a distinguished ancestor who turned the French line at a critical moment. That seems a suitable beginning before Thessaloniki and the discussions on any future European foreign and defence policy.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Freeman for mentioning the military connection with my immediate predecessor, Viscount Younger of Leckie. I had not realised that he served under the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, and was wounded under him during his service with the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders in Korea at that time.
The fascinating aspect that the Minister brought out so well is that Ministers, the Ministry of Defence, parties in government, are all trustees with responsibilities for preserving one of the most vital assets of this country. The Prime Minister made exactly the same point about the quality of our Armed Forces. It is a continuous responsibility. Most of the weaponry and equipment in the recent Gulf War deployed by the present Government was ordered by the previous government, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent, made the point that he ordered most of it 20 years ago. Whether, when we come back to government, we ensure that we preserve the quality of our Armed Forces will partly depend on the decisions that he takes, such are the lead times involved.
In case we as politicians get too carried away with the originality of our own ideas, I listened to what the noble Lord said about the Strategic Defence Review and the importance of rapid reaction, flexibility and mobility being the key discovery made by that review. If he looks at Britain's Army far the 90s, which we published 10 years previously, those are exactly the principles that the MoD in its wisdom enunciated at that time. There is, therefore, a continuity of policy. I think I speak for the whole House when I say that at the heart of what we have discussed today is the great pride that we have in our Armed Forces, great pride in what they

885
have done. But the real concern—I am sure the Minister feels the same—is that there are new pressures and new challenges. The end of a war or campaign, or whatever one calls it, is a very difficult time anyway. Will the people who have had the experience of a lifetime now stay, or will they feel that that is what they joined the Army to do, and will they, as the noble Lord, Lord Vivian said, feel that now they have done it, they should have another experience somewhere else?
Against that background, this is a very challenging time for the Government. Because they are current trustees of one of the great assets of this country, very important for our national security and a force for good in the world, I am sure that the messages that have been conveyed from all corners of this debate will be taken to heart and may be helpful to the Minister and his colleagues in some of the battles that may lie ahead. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Teacher Recruitment
8.10 p.m.
Lord Campbell-Savoursrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what consideration is being given to economy, efficiency and effectiveness in teacher recruitment.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this debate is about the use of taxpayers' money. It is born of my experience as a member of the Public Accounts Committee between 1980 and 1990. Its objective is to ask three simple questions. First, is taxpayers' money being wasted in the process of teacher recruitment? Secondly, could the task be carried out more cheaply, and could schools and their budgets benefit from different arrangements for recruitment? Thirdly, would teachers seeking work find a more streamlined system more effective in locating teaching posts?
In the course of the past 10 years, the recruitment and retention of teaching staff has become one of the most significant challenges to face school managers. The growing gap between the number of vacancies and qualified applicants, combined with an increasingly mobile workforce, has led to an enormous rise in advertised vacancies. Although the underlying cause of that crisis is a shortage of trained staff, it has brought sharply into focus the process by which teachers are recruited. A disturbing picture is revealed. Many schools spend on vacancy advertising the equivalent of the amount required to fund an additional member of staff. Institutions spend ever increasing amounts on bigger, more noticeable advertisements to compete with each other and with wealthier private institutions. The Times Educational Supplement, an effective monopoly, which I understand carries some 70 per cent of the vacancies, takes millions of pounds per week from school budgets and cash-strapped institutions in deprived areas. It provides a rich source of income to the highly profitable News International.
886
Furthermore, although the figure of 70 per cent of the market is undoubtedly impressive, 30 per cent of vacancies are not advertised in the TES. because of lack of funds. For those schools, often the most deprived, the chances of filling a place are greatly reduced, and it becomes almost impossible for applicants to find positions. A by-product of this harsh competition is the effect that it has on school managers. To be consistently siphoning money from an already tight budget to spend on often fruitless advertising must be demoralising to say the least.
There is no question that the path which led to the current position is entirely legitimate. Historically, the process of recruitment has relied on school managers advertising their vacancies in whatever they deemed to be the most effective and efficient publication. I understand that. As in many fields, the desire on all sides to create a mutually accepted publication for vacancies has led to the predominance of the TES.
Such a system was entirely sustainable where small sums were paid for single advertisements and was, indeed, desirable, as both advertisers and applicants have a much simpler task in reaching each other. There is, however, another factor that has recently altered the status quo and presented the Government with a real, viable alternative—the Internet.
The recruitment industry generally has long been recognised as an ideal application for the Internet, and agencies have been quick to move online. The processes of an employer placing an advert, a potential applicant registering an interest and the resulting match of the two can be done instantly online without any intermediary. The cost and speed implication is huge and has led to online recruitment services being some of the few successful online ventures.
In addition to the easily automated process, applicants from anywhere in the world can register their specific interest and post their CV online. They can then choose automatically to be advised by e-mail, post or telephone of every appropriate vacancy as it arises and even have their CV automatically sent to the appropriate institution.
Unlike the Government, a number of rival Internet-based companies have recognised this opportunity and entered the market, keen to exploit the present position and to entice schools away from the crippling costs of newspaper advertising. One notable early success has been e.teach.com, whose aggressive marketing and partnership with the Independent newspaper has gained it a 20 per cent stake of vacancies. In response, the TES has launched its own online service, but due to its dominant market position, this has tied it exclusively to its offline publication to maintain revenues.
For a glimpse of where we are heading, we must look to America. In the past 10 years, an uncontrolled surge in online teaching vacancy websites has led to a highly fragmented market that relies on hundreds of unconnected lists, and makes effective communication between recruiters and applicants almost impossible. This problem was recognised by President Clinton in 2000 when he tried to consolidate the structure by creating a top-level body called Recruiting Teachers. In

887
reality, all he succeeded in doing was creating a central list of fragmented organisations. This is not what we want in the United Kingdom.
The truth is that a very substantial amount of time and money is spent every year by institutions that are forced by the lack of an alternative to choose between very expensive or low-penetration media. The current increase in competition will fragment the market. So what can we do about it?
Recently, I tracked down a proposal recently made to the DIES for a not-for-profit, centrally managed website that would list 100 per cent of the public sector teaching vacancies and be free for both schools and applicants. The proposal came from a firm called Cognita. I asked it for further details, as its proposals had clear implications for the public purse. I should make it clear that I have no connection whatever, financial or otherwise, with the company, apart from the fact that a principal of the company, whom I have met once, is the relative of someone known to me professionally.
Apart from the dramatic cost savings, the system proposed could provide a wealth of functions that would help applicants and institutions to find each other. All that would be required to implement the scheme would be for the Government to oblige institutions to list their vacancies with the website.
To assess the feasibility of this service, the promoters, I understand, consulted a number of industry professionals. The reaction to the concept was almost uniformly positive. The only reservations that were expressed about the proposed system were possible difficulties in implementation and overlap, and the added burden of informing a central register. In fact, it would place little added burden on the institutions that already inform the LEA of vacancies. Indeed, a centralised system could automatically inform the relevant LEA, thus ultimately reducing the overall workload. Although such a system would initially have to operate in parallel with the current marketing mix, I estimate that it could largely replace newspaper-based advertising within eight months to a year.
I am confident that the implementation of the proposed service offers an excellent opportunity to remove a very wasteful and unnecessary drain on school budgets—a drain estimated at equivalent to almost 5,000 extra teachers per year or £60 million in expenditure a year. In addition, the comprehensive and targetable nature of the service would facilitate a smoother, more accurate and faster process, vital to improving recruitment rates.
I raise the subject because I represent the taxpayer, and the figures stand out for themselves. We have an estimate of £60 million under known current arrangements. I am told that the cost of an alternative Internet service such as I proposed could be between £1 million and £3 million: a substantial saving to the public purse. I think it is a bargain. Why cannot we, in government, sponsor and set up such a service, and save the taxpayer a fortune?
8.22 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for the opportunity to debate this important issue. I hope that he will forgive me if I come at his topic sideways. I wish to argue that to recruit more teachers, we must recognise the stress that current teachers face, and seek to minimise this stress to avoid the cost of recruitment. Teachers are facing children whose needs are increasingly complex. We must reduce the numbers of such children by early intervention before they arrive at school.
I have sat in a class in a comprehensive not far from the House, and seen one unmanageable child reduce the classroom to chaos and the nerves of the teachers to tatters. I have worked with children in an intermediate treatment centre, and have never experienced more stress, before or since. After every session with these children, my ears burned for several minutes, I think due to increased blood pressure. We now rightly demand higher standards of our teachers. Increasingly, they face children who have experienced family breakdown, grown up in poverty, or experienced the trauma of their parents separating, and boys who have grown up without a father in the picture. Also, a recent report cited two to three per cent of parents as problem drug-users.
Inevitably, these experiences impact indirectly on teachers. The Minister is taking many steps to improve teachers' experience, and to help them better enjoy their work. I simply express my concern that teachers should have a thorough grounding in child development as part of their teacher training. It is important that teachers can put the behaviour of children into context. If they comprehend the reasons for children's behaviour, they will find it less intimidating, and they will be better equipped to manage it effectively, firmly and confidently.
As regards early intervention, it is encouraging to read more and more research that demonstrates that high-quality day care improves education and other outcomes for children, particularly for disadvantaged children. The Government's Sure Start programme has been a resounding success. I pay tribute to the Minister for her part in promoting and developing the programme.
However, I am concerned at the impact of the rapid increase in the use of day care for very young children. I am concerned, first, that there is an insufficient work force to deliver the quality of provision required. Secondly, I am concerned at the increase in the use of this type of provision for children under 12 months. The Minister will be aware of the work of J Belsky in this area. Belsky is one of the academics charged with evaluating the success of the Sure Start programme and has published a paper entitled Developmental Risks ( Still) Associated with Early Child Care. He argues that the available evidence suggests that early—in the first year of life—extensive and continuous non-maternal care is associated with elevated levels of aggression and non-compliance. The Minister has kindly agreed to meet me about my concerns. I certainly do not question the thrust of the Government's programme but rather the detail.

889
I do not intend to speak at great length. My intention is simply to underline the need to support teachers and ensure that pupils are, as far as possible, a pleasure to teach. Such support is necessary if we are to recruit and retain sufficient numbers of teachers in future.
I recently met a group of care leavers preparing to go to university. One of them was taught by a teacher at an RPS Rayner project in south London which I had visited a few months earlier. The director of the care leaver project had been especially proud of her teacher, a young Afro-Caribbean woman. The care leaver well remembered the teacher's encouragement and enthusiasm. The teacher had made such a difference to the care leaver's life chances by enabling her to go to university. May God bless her and all our teachers.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for initiating this debate and for the very pertinent points that he made when he spoke. It is, I think, a little over three years since I spoke from our Front Bench in an education debate. I am therefore also very grateful to my successor as our education spokesman, my noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford, for giving me this opportunity so that she could attend the parliamentary choir this evening. It is also a pleasure to find myself once again back alongside—geographically speaking at least—the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
As I always used to, I have still to declare two personal interests. First, I am still a member of a local education authority and have been now for very nearly 30 years. Secondly, with a little more pleasure, I am married still to a primary school teacher, and have been for rather more than 30 years. So the subject of this debate is of particular personal interest to me. I am pleased to have a chance to make a brief contribution, although I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Sharp for her considerable help in ensuring that I am at least reasonably up-to-date in my remarks.
From these Benches our concerns centre on two issues, the first of which is the process of recruitment per se and whether it is efficient and effective. In particular we are concerned at the drop-out rates, both from initial teacher training and from among those who, having trained, either do not pursue the teaching profession or do so for only a few years. Secondly, we are concerned about the efficiency and effectiveness of the job market for teachers, including the ways in which vacancies are advertised and made known to potential recruits. If I may, I shall deal first with the issue of recruitment and retention.
The teaching profession now boasts more than 400,000 full-time-equivalent members, up from 380,000 when the Government first came to power. Demographics have boosted school rolls, but—and here I will pay tribute to government achievements, for perhaps the only time this evening—the decrease in pupil-teacher ratios in key stage 1 classes and the fast expansion of nursery classes has meant that we need, and have recruited, more teachers. There has been little
890
problem with recruiting for primary school teachers. Over the past few years, the 15,000-plus training places in this sector have been filled by early June with little difficulty. It has been the secondary sector that has posed problems and it is where shortfalls, especially in maths, science and modern languages, still remain.
The good news is that this year—for the first time since the Government came to power—it looks as if the Government will be close to meeting their targets on secondary school recruitment. Their target is to recruit 17,000 people and by the beginning of June, applications had reached 21,000. More applications will still come and, allowing for those graduates who change their mind and drop out—often without letting the colleges know—it appears that the Government are reasonably well up to target, even in areas such as maths and science.
Therefore, it is ironic that in a year when the Government have good news on the recruitment front, the Government's own policies should have resulted in a crisis this summer in which more than 500 teachers are likely to be losing their jobs because of cash shortages. In addition, many more are in danger of not having their contracts renewed or perhaps having their hours of work cut. Others are being forced out because of falling rolls.
It seems that the Government have abandoned any notion of using these teachers' skills to reduce class sizes at key stage 2. I would welcome the Minister's comments on that. It appears that the Government would rather classroom teachers were sacked and replaced with less well trained, or even untrained, classroom assistants. That is hardly an environment which will encourage young people, or teaching assistants who seek to upgrade their own qualifications, to see the teaching profession as a long-term stable career.
It is also worth remembering that from the point of view of economy and efficiency, for every 10 people recruited into initial teacher training, two drop out during training and a further three fail to proceed—at least initially—into the teaching profession. In other words, for every 10 people recruited only five actually end up teaching. It is not quite as bad as it sounds since although only 65 per cent go immediately into teaching, something like 80 per cent end up teaching sometime during the following five years.
On top of the inefficiencies of teacher training, there is a continuing loss from the failure to retain teachers. If each teacher taught for a full 40-year span—a prospect which horrifies my wife whenever I mention it—and there is a workforce of 400,000, replacement recruitment would run at only 10,000 a year. The fact that we are looking at recruiting over 30,000 a year gives some indication of this loss. So not only do we have to bear the cost of drop-outs during the teacher training process, but also the continuing cost of leakage from the profession. How many of us know people who started life as teachers and have ended up in all kinds of other professions, contributing substantially to society but nevertheless not doing what they were initially trained to do?

891
In addition to training costs, schools have to meet substantial costs advertising and interviewing for new staff. I now come to the points made quite rightly by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, when he introduced the debate. Ever since the introduction of local management of schools, the job market for schools has been operated almost entirely by the private sector. The only exception has been the continued use of pools by some LEAs to recruit newly-qualified primary school teachers. However, even that useful mechanism has been continued only where individual schools were prepared to buy into the local authority service. Indeed, with the determination by the Government to pursue even more passporting of funds to schools, many local authorities might not even be able to continue this useful service.
So how has the job market worked and is it efficient? Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said earlier, for many years the Times Educational Supplement has been the main national vehicle for advertising teaching posts. Those that do not need to be advertised nationally often appear in local bulletins, if LEAs can still afford to produce them. Again, they are dependent upon schools buying into the service. A study of one LEA in the South West found that some secondary schools were not bothering to advertise locally, but were going straight to the TES, presumably because they received a better response rate. It is certainly better value. I am led to believe that the Times Educational Supplement has increased its advertising rates more slowly than many other publications have done over the past few years, but perhaps, as the noble Lord said, it has not needed to.
In addition, the TES does now offer a free online version, with the advert being placed without further charge on the Internet. Not only does this seem to provide schools with two types of advertising for the price of only one, but it also recognises the importance of the combination of Internet and print advertising in reaching the widest possible number of potential applicants.
There are two other examples in the education world that support the effectiveness of this linked approach. The first, eteach, started as an online job service, but soon linked with the Independent newspaper so that its jobs are listed in print each week. Similarly, in the higher education sector, although there is an effective job website, most universities still advertise the very same posts in the Guardian and the Times Higher Educational Supplement as well as on the web. That competition between providers has helped to keep prices down.
What has forced schools to spend much more money on job advertising over the past few years has been the shortage of teachers. When competing for a scare resource, schools have wanted to take more space to sell themselves in order to attract teachers. Where once classified adverts were the norm, schools now feel that they must take display adverts that sell not only the job but also the school. Indeed, for head teacher posts, some schools now take half a page of newsprint.
892
However, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, may be pleased to know that relief is at hand. The number of adverts in the TES has been falling, although I have not noticed that from the weight of the TES, which I still receive every week. A virtuous circle has restarted thanks to the Government's funding crisis. Few teaching jobs mean fewer adverts, which do not need to be so large to attract attention. That will save schools money which in turn can be spent on more teachers.
I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government are not thinking of intervening in that market. Their own record in teacher recruitment advertising is, to say the least, flawed. For instance, the fast-track scheme has wasted millions on advertising, but recruited only a few hundred teachers.
Much more effective have been strategy managers that local authorities have been allowed to recruit. Their knowledge of the local recruitment scene has proved exactly what we on these Benches have always said; namely, that local communities can provide local solutions for local problems. Teacher recruitment will always be at its most effective when that is the case. That is an area that Whitehall would do well not to enter. It is more important that the Government manage the teacher supply situation than that they try to act as a commercial organisation in a market that is already proving responsive to the demands of its clients.
What conclusions should be drawn from my observations? First, the problems of recruitment are multiplied by the failures of retention. From the point of view of efficiency and economy, it is vital that the profession keeps within its ranks as many as possible of those who complete the initial training. Are the Government confident that they are doing all in their power to retain such people? Is it not significant that in a recent survey of public sector management conducted by the Chartered Management Institute, the education sector recorded the greatest decrease in employee morale and satisfaction? Is it perhaps the case, as that survey suggested, that too much emphasis has been put on the "hard" targets of tests and league tables, and not enough on the "soft" targets of partnership, team building and leadership?
Secondly, has all the competition that has emerged in the recruitment market chased out of that market some of the more informal, locally based routes to recruitment which were infinitely cheaper and arguably more efficient than the formal, national market that has emerged?
I am grateful to the noble Lord for initiating this debate. I listened with great interest to the points that he made tonight and will listen with equal interest to the replies that the Minister gives to them.
8.40 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I too am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for this debate. The answer to the core question of the noble Lord is yes. Clearly it can be more economic and certainly more effective. hope that the eminently practical suggestions made by the noble Lord will be

893
seriously considered by the department. I add the caveat made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that the Government should not become involved in the scheme. They should find ways to promote the idea that entrepreneurs get an opportunity to relieve schools of the very costly business of using traditional advertising methods.
May I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I have been reminiscing sitting here thinking how much I have missed the noble Lord over the past three years. It is good to see him back in his place.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, raised a very important issue which does impact on the recruitment and retention of teachers. I do not have time to go into all the complexities mentioned by the noble Earl. But the management of a classroom and the professional satisfaction for teachers coping with the normal numbers of children in a classroom are often invalidated by situations way beyond their control. Forced integration and inclusivity are a real problem. There are other ways of meeting the needs of disruptive pupils.
I shall concentrate on the issue of recruitment but retention is also an important feature. The Government are doing what they can to paper over the ever-widening cracks appearing in our school system. Difficulties in teacher recruitment are just one symptom of the deteriorating health of our schools. It will take more than the slapdash short-term solutions offered so far to turn the situation around. All the evidence is that there is an increase in the turnover for both part-time and full-time local authority teachers.
Worryingly, this trend is particularly apparent among the 25 to 29 year age group. A report published in February of last year warned that 12.8 per cent of teachers moved jobs in 2000, a rise of 25 per cent on the previous year and the highest turnover figure for a decade. In the South East the turnover figure was the highest on record with almost one in five teachers leaving their jobs.
Much has been made of the additional number of teachers since 1997.I would not argue that there are not more teachers. However, can the Minister tell the House the number of additional full-time equivalent teachers? There is a distinction between new teachers and equivalent full-time teachers. What is the pupil-teacher ratio for 1997 and 2002–3? What is the proportion of teachers registered with the General Teaching Council not actually teaching and therefore a loss to the profession? The department seems to think that recruitment targets are being met but they are not telling the full story. Of the 4,300 full time staff recruited last year, 3,000 were unqualified or overseas teachers, many of whom had qualifications not recognised in this country. In the meantime, schools are being forced to lay off experienced teachers as they can no longer afford to employ them.
Thanks to government policy, schools have to employ from an ever smaller pool of candidates which will over time affect the quality of teaching. The Government seem to be working very hard to ensure
894
that teaching is no longer the attractive and well-respected profession it once was. Schools and teachers are stripped of their autonomy as the Government take the responsibility of decision making into their own hands and away from those who are best qualified to do the job. Professional satisfaction is a serious issue for many teachers.
Initiative overload is another factor. Endless projects debilitating time, energy and money. Many of the initiatives announced and funded since 1997 appear to have vanished without trace. Such a waste of resources is sinful when one considers how many schools are struggling to survive. Teachers are overwhelmed by bureaucracy. We are constantly being told it is falling, but on talking to teachers we know that the effect is not yet felt in our schools. Teachers spend 20 per cent of their time on administrative work, filling in endless forms for the Government. Targets such as the 50 per cent of 16-year olds getting five good GCSEs are counter-productive as they encourage teachers to worry about the Government's figure and to neglect students who are not near the margins of obtaining the target. They leave teachers demoralised by stripping them of their professional judgment. Furthermore, out of the nine targets set by the Government last year seven failed to be met. And guess who was blamed? The teachers.
What causes distress and frustration for teachers, the heads and governors is the record of the department itself. Last year it under-spent by £1 billion. What has happened to that money? Could not some of it help to relieve part of this year's problems? Over recent years there has been a massive increase in the department's staff; in the number of advisers it employs; in the public relations budget it executes; in the level of bureaucracy it initiates; and, finally, in the number of Ministers it employs.
There was a time when the reputation of the teaching profession spoke for itself and when high-quality applicants were easily attracted into new teaching posts. Now the Government are forced into measures to reverse the widespread perception of teaching as a highly stressful and poorly appreciated career that they have been responsible for creating—measures such as the costly advertising campaign, "Those who can, teach" and the "interactive" poster encouraging people to visit the Teacher Training Agency website.
The Government have thrown large sums of money, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, into a fast track scheme, bribing high-achieving graduates into the profession with the promise of a £5,000 bursary and a laptop computer. Perhaps it should not surprise noble Lords that only about 110 teachers have been brought into the classroom in that way. My figure of 110 may not be absolutely accurate, but it is not many more.
Surely, we need to tackle the problem in an entirely different way. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has given a practical example of how that could be achieved. Teachers and head teachers should be free to do what they do best; that is, teach and run their schools. That means government not constantly interfering with ever-increasing ring-fenced funding and new initiatives,

895
which, since the last Conservative administration, have increased many times over. In that way teachers would he given back their decision-making ability and with it their dignity. This is the best advertisement one could hope for. Out of interest, how much money is held back by the department to cover those projects initiated and controlled by the centre? I know it is an unprecedented figure; it would be useful to know it.
The problem has been aggravated with this year's funding crisis. Schools are now facing new costs—the I per cent increase in national insurance and the teachers' pension scheme, the cost of recruiting staff due to the high turnover—again figures have been given by other noble Lords—and now the doubling of the enhanced criminal record check that has to be made. We have approximately 25,000 schools, 5 million teachers and endless governors; all have to have enhanced checks. That has doubled overnight. It was not recognised in the settlement. I ask the Minister: what is the estimate of the cost of the enhanced doubling and of the other criminal record checks to the education service as a whole?
Many schools face a budgetary situation with shortfalls of hundreds of thousands of pounds. In this situation, head teachers have no option but to make redundancies. There are many examples. Whalley Range High School for girls—one of the most improved schools in the country—is reportedly facing the prospect of shedding up to 20 staff because of a £600,000 shortfall. That will inevitably lead to escalating class sizes, which, according to the National Association of Head Teachers, could reach levels not seen since the 1950s.
The funding crisis will no doubt have an impact upon recruitment, not least because of the damage done to the morale of would-be teachers witnessing from the outside the mismanagement of school funding by the Government. Who would want to join a profession when they can see the redundancies forced upon schools due to a totally incompetent miscalculation and a manipulation of grants from the south to the north? Not unexpectedly, many schools have found it impossible to adjust. Teaching posts are being saved by a combination of deficit funding and conversion of capital to revenue spending. There are even novel practices of heads taking only part of their salaries in order to protect their own teachers; teachers jumping from balloons to raise money; and even the possibility of schools charging parents fees.
So what is the response of the Government? The first step was to pass the buck to the LEAs for holding back money from schools, and when that did not work and the situation was moving to crisis point, the Minister responsible for school standards in another place, David Miliband, announced an extra £28 million for the 36 worst-off authorities. In addition, the Government acknowledged the dire straits in which schools were finding themselves and allowed them to use their devolved capital funding to support their day-to-day running costs. I pity the school that has to make a choice between making emergency repair works to classrooms, without which they become unusable, and sending good teachers into compulsory redundancy.
896
Will those schools which go into deficit funding this year on the advice of the department have that deficit covered next year in the settlement, or will the settlement have to be pre-empted to put right that deficit before schools can then apply it to employing teachers?
I am afraid that the Government are deluding themselves into thinking that the budgetary problem is only short term. I quote the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Mr Charles Clarke:
"I accept that this is a difficult year of change for schools and LEAs, with unique circumstances arising from the changes of the funding system, and the one-off pressures on teachers' pensions and National Insurance".
I add to that the costs of criminal record checks—and there are many other pressures as well—which were not taken into account this year.
On the contrary—it does not appear that the Government will be able very quickly to resolve the problem, which is of their own making. Elements of the teacher workload package, introduced by the Department for Education and Skills, will add substantial new costs to schools and have not yet been introduced, but will be phased in over the next few years. By September 2003, schools must have enough classroom assistants to take over from teachers on 25 tasks, such as chasing absent pupils, and the NASUWT has pledged industrial action if any teacher is asked to perform one of these tasks. By September 2004, a contractual limit of 36 hours per year per teacher on covering for absent colleagues will he put in place. Schools will have to spend more of their non-existent resources to ensure that they have the staff to provide cover when teachers are off sick; and yet more of a headache for school bursars is the guaranteed minimum of 10 per cent of a teacher's time having to be set aside for planning, preparation and assessment by September 2005. How schools will cope with these measures on top of the current funding fiasco is quite beyond me—and certainly beyond the teachers. They know that, with all the Government's promises, the measures will not he fully funded.
To add insult to injury, many schools face considerable uncertainty on their future budgetary allowances. This is thanks to the new government finance settlement and the impact that it will have over the next few years, particularly on schools in the South of England, where the costs of living are much higher. Planning for new buildings or improvements for the mid to long term becomes all but impossible given the current uncertainties that schools face.
The recruitment and the retention of teachers would be more effective if professional satisfaction could be restored; if there was far less intervention by central government; if the Government would agree to the abolition of central targets which would leave schools accountable to parents, local communities and to Ofsted for educational standards; if there was greater transparency, simplicity and fairness in the funding system; and if there was greater economic stability.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has done us all a great service. He concentrated on a specific aspect of schools expenditure which, if his advice were followed, could free up a great deal of money that

897
would go a long way to resolving some of the problems of individual schools. It is wasted money. It is money that is simply not being applied to the education of children in the classroom.
Finally, teaching is a noble calling which moulds the lives of young people, intellectually, physically, culturally and spiritually. It is a huge challenge. My plea is that teachers should be freed from the shackles of central bureaucratic control to meet that challenge.
8.54 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours and am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to his concerns about the working of the current teacher vacancy-filling market; and his proposed solutions, to which I shall devote some of my remarks.
I am delighted to have experienced the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, although I am not entirely convinced that that is an experience with which I want to continue, bearing in mind the policy of his speech. I was especially pleased to hear that he is still married after 30 years and, for a moment, I confess that I thought that he was horribly on-message. However, that did not last long.
I acknowledge that the means and cost of filling teacher vacancies is of great concern to the Government. In my remarks, I want to stress some issues of concern, and our belief that we are doing much that provides an essential foundation for the teacher recruitment market to work effectively.
We remain open to constructive arguments for engaging with the technical aspects of teacher recruitment. But I must say at the outset that I am not persuaded that the market would benefit from the direct involvement of the department, along the lines suggested by my noble friend, although for different reasons from those advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
To begin with, let me say a little about teacher supply. I recognise that the Government have broken the traditional linkage between the economic cycle and teacher recruitment. I disagree with my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, because teacher numbers are at their highest since 1982. Those increases in supply will themselves, over time, reduce the need for advertisements, because many more vacancies will be filled. Indeed, there are fewer vacancies in the system—25 per cent fewer than last year. The vacancy rate stands at less than 1 per cent of all posts.
Several noble Lords raised direct questions, and I shall attempt to answer them—with the promise, as always, that those that I fail to answer, I shall do so in correspondence, placing copies in the Library. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was of course interested in full-time equivalence. In January 2003, 423,900 were employed in schools, a rise of 4,300 since 2002; of 13,700 since 2001; and of 24,700 since 1997—which, I think, was the specific comparator that the noble Baroness
898
required. Most are UK-qualified; 97 per cent have QTS. Overall, that means that we have reached the highest level since 1982.
The number of full-time equivalent qualified teacher numbers has risen by 500 on last year and is at its highest level since January 1984. The number of new entrants applying to college-based teacher training courses in England has risen for the third year running.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, talked about drop-out rates. He recognised that about 90 per cent of all qualified teachers will work as teachers at some stage in their careers. Wastage rates are falling, which is extremely heartening. It is important to recognise that there are many reasons why teachers may start off wanting a teaching career, leave and then return or, indeed, decide to take another career and later enter teaching.
Noble Lords also raised the issue of new flexibility in considering our workforce. I recognise the value and importance of our support teachers. Noble Lords mentioned our support staff. We have made significant funds available to recruit and train extra teaching assistants. We have 80,000 teaching assistants and support workers more than in 1997. They are an important part of the teaching workforce in schools. It is critical that we release our teachers for the professional job of teaching. I recognise that other adults have long played an important role, and we must support and enhance their position in so doing. The work that we are doing with the various unions that are involved with our work source agreement gives us an opportunity to ensure that the issue of bureaucracy, to which the noble Baroness. Lady Blatch, once again returned, is addressed in an important way.
Understandably, noble Lords have raised the issue of funding. Those noble Lords who were present for the debate on that subject will know that I have been clear that we understand that there have been real difficulties this year. My right honourable friend has taken steps to ensure that schools are able to manage this year, with a view to ensuring that we have a good system in place for next year. That flexibility has been important. We have allowed schools to go into deficit in a proper and considered way with their local education authority. We have made flexibility in capital for this year.
All of that is in the context of ongoing work to ensure that we have stability in the system for next year and to ensure that schools have the capacity to manage in coming years. I will, with great pleasure, come to your Lordships' House to discuss those issues in more detail when I have more to say.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked a specific question about redundancies due to funding shortfalls. They stand at around 237, which are figures that we have from the NASUWT. There have been a number of figures; that is the figure that I have before me. If it changes, I will, of course, inform your Lordships.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked about pupil-teacher ratios. Overall, the pupil-teacher ratio in 1997 was 18.6; and in 2003 was 17.9. I have more detail, but I

899
am conscious of time, and I am happy to make that available to the noble Baroness and other noble Lords if they would like to see it.
We have made sure that we have a good retention and recruitment fund. We have allocated £77 million direct to schools in 2002–03. London schools received £42 million. Targets of the fund are mainly secondary schools in areas of the highest teacher vacancies, as noble Lords would expect. They aim to support local initiatives of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, described. It is on retention, of course, that we want to focus some of the attention of this debate. It is critical, for all the reasons that noble Lords have raised tonight.
We have also made sure that in London, which is a particular case, we funded a teacher recruitment and retention unit in the Government Office, to address the questions that noble Lords have raised and which are of great concern in London.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, referred to early intervention, behaviour and issues that directly affect teachers' ability in a classroom and their willingness to stay in the profession. The noble Earl was kind in his remarks about Sure Start and my role in that initiative. It is a delight to still be here.
The Government are investing £470 million in the behaviour and attendance strategy. That is important as we begin to address some of the needs of our teachers and the needs of our children. The noble Earl is right about early intervention and early years work. We recently launched the Birth to Three Matters framework, guidance aimed at practitioners and professionals involved in the delivery of services to children between birth and three years, to support children's emotional development and to help to promote positive behaviour.
We know that where there are good pre-school experiences, there are significant benefits for cognitive development and sociability of children. The noble Earl is right to talk about the research that is making us look carefully at the quality issues that surround all of our settings.
That is why the watchword of the work that we do in the Sure Start unit is "quality". That will be the direct reason that children are more successful. It is an important part of ensuring that once our children get to school they will have the ability to learn and to enjoy school life.
I focus the next set of my remarks on the proposals that my noble friend has raised. I recognise that the wide range of activities that the department is involved in with education authorities and beyond does not provide all the answers for busy head teachers, who are faced with the practical needs of trying to fill vacancies week to week and term to term. I acknowledge too that, as my noble friend said, the teacher vacancy market is overwhelmingly paper-based and is led largely by the Times Educational Supplement. My noble friend mentioned a figure of 70 per cent. The TES fulfils a need, but it does so without any government recommendations to schools that they should pursue
900
that avenue alone. The TES would not claim to be the only advertising source, although it is, of course, the largest.
Online advertising is increasing, and that is helpful. It should be cheaper and more flexible than solely pa per-based systems. It is well known that an increasing number of websites are dedicated to online recruitment. Several of those are dedicated education suppliers.
There are other direct interventions by certain agencies to help schools. The Teacher Training Agency has recruitment managers working in education authority areas throughout the country. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, mentioned them. They provide co-ordinated support in filling local vacancies. Likewise, education authorities often co-ordinate vacancy trawls in their area, providing schools with free vacancy circulation. Some back that up with Internet options. As noble Lords will know, 60 per cent of teachers move within their local education authority area, so it is important to recognise those locally based systems.
The Government do not collect centrally the details of the cost to schools of advertising vacancies, so we cannot draw authoritative conclusions. However, I shall not quibble with the figure of£60 million that my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours suggested. It is as good an estimate as any. Whatever the sum, it is sizeable. Many of the alternative providers will make charges and may not reduce costs for schools, but some are free. Noble Lords will know of Everythingeducation, and several such as eteach.com, which was mentioned by my noble friend, have keenly competitive subscription rates and can, in some instances, provide a year's advertising for less than the cost of a decently sized advertisement in the TES.
I share my noble friend's conviction that the Internet can offer savings to schools in advertising, as well as enhanced services and opportunities. Electronic search, notification and follow-up options are well suited to teaching posts, which are easily searchable. The market principally addresses only those teachers actively searching for a new position at a particular time. Targeted e-mailing. as my noble friend said, allows a wider constituency to be kept in touch with fresh opportunities. Use of the Internet allows recruitment to be closely aligned with other service users so that career development opportunities can be targeted at a more closely identified market. For advertisers, the Internet allows schools to source teachers or potential candidates from online CV banks and to present unlimited additional information about their post or their school. With our substantial investment in an ICT-literate profession, we know that teachers are an increasingly appropriate audience. It is an angle on teacher recruitment that we look forward to encouraging.
There is a significant number of partners already in the field, some with services free or cheaper than popular current models. The question with which I will finish is the extent to which the Government should become directly involved. The Government do not recruit teachers; decisions on needs are made locally by governing bodies and head teachers, as is appropriate and right. My noble friend argued specifically for a

901
government vacancy website, with schools obliged to register their vacancies centrally. My concern about that proposition is the degree of compulsion and the threat of further bureaucracy for schools, which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will be quick to recognise. In particular, I do not share my noble friend's belief that such a o measure would necessarily promote the efficiency that he argues for. I do not concede that some form of state monopoly requiring schools to log vacancies centrally would necessarily provide a more streamlined and efficient system. It goes against the principle of devolving spending decisions to schools.
Like my noble friend, I recognise the value of the Internet as a recruitment tool that should be encouraged, but it does not follow that the Government are—or are likely to be—best placed to provide Internet job-matching facilities, exclusively or otherwise, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will agree. However, I am open-minded enough to consider alternatives to the status quo. Several possible activities have been suggested, through which the department could help teachers, advertising schools and the existing market providers to promote efficiency and effectiveness. There may be scope for exploiting the department's web presence to promote better recruitment and shape the market by enhancing the support available. That could be done by providing,
902
for example, CV doctors and advice, thus encouraging teachers and hence advertisers deeper into the Internet market.
I am more sanguine than my noble friend about the precedents in the United States. The scale is different. Already there is a national consciousness about teacher recruitment here in England. Such a portal in this country could quality-assure advertisers against certain criteria and could allow a single request to source vacancies from different providers. On the face of it, such options are technically feasible. I make no commitment to their introduction, but they strike me as a more appropriate marriage between the proper role of the department in a free market and the value of exploiting new technology.
In conclusion, I believe that as teacher supply increases, we can expect recruitment to offer better valuefor money. We have equipped the profession for the growth of e-recruitment. That is the proper role of government on this issue. I see a growing Internet vacancy market that has breadth and technical flair. It should be encouraged to succeed rather than be squashed by heavyweight government intervention. We shall continue to keep this matter under consideration. I, too, thank my noble friend for initiating this debate.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past nine o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Extradition Bill
  (Third Day)
  Wednesday, 18th June 2003.
  The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
  Clause 2 [Part 1 warrant and certificate]:
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin)moved Amendment No. 30:
  Page 3, line 3, leave out subsection (11).
  The noble Lord said: I hope that I can deal with this amendment briefly. As noble Lords will be aware, the Bill was amended on Report in another place to make explicit the stipulation that all European arrest warrants must be issued by a judicial authority. We were pleased to respond to those representations. At the same time, we included a transitional provision, which is now Clause 2(11), to allow us to deal with preexisting alerts on the Schengen information system, or SIS. Members of another place were happy to go along with what we were proposing on that basis. However, on further examination, we considered that some additional minor modifications would be required to enable us to deal with SIS alerts. We concluded that it would be better to have a self-contained provision explicitly dealing with SIS alerts. The provisions that we have in mind will be in Part 5 and we will not reach them for a while, but I assure noble Lords that it is our intention to table the relevant amendment in good time for us to consider it before it is debated. On that basis, I invite noble Lords to agree to the removal of the now redundant Clause 2(11) from the Bill. I beg to move.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I simply rise to agree to the removal of the provision. Because we are in Grand Committee, amendments may be made only with agreement, and I signal that. It is logical that it should be removed. I also place on the record congratulations from the Grand Committee to the Minister on his new post in the Government's reshuffle over the weekend. We shall all be sorry to lose him eventually from the Bill but we notice that he is still working hard with us today. He will be welcome for as long as he is allowed to remain with us but we appreciate that he must go elsewhere at some stage.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: We discussed the clause pretty thoroughly and I do not want to say more about
  GC 288
  identification. However, it is convenient at this stage for me to raise another matter that has implications for the Bill. I refer to the agreement reached between the European Union and the United States on extradition and mutual legal assistance.
  It is difficult these days in this place to keep up with all that is going on. So much is going on that unless one is a miracle worker one cannot always know exactly what is happening. I find it odd that such an agreement, which was negotiated in secret, should be made by the European Union with the United States at the same time as Parliament--this Grand Committee—was discussing this Bill. Because the EUUS arrangement was being discussed in secret, I was not aware—no doubt this also includes most other noble Lords—of what had been going on for some 18 months. Any arrangements with the United States would be on a bilateral basis and not by means of an EU-US agreement.
  Virtually out of the blue, the EU-US agreement appeared. Apparently, the matter was of such great urgency after 18 months of discussion that the House of Lords European Union Committee was asked to lift the scrutiny reserve, which I believe it was reluctant to do, in order that the agreement could be signed on 7th June 2003. It is true that Mr Bob Ainsworth, who was then Under-Secretary of State—I believe that he has since changed his job; so quickly do things happen—agreed to appear before Sub-Committee E on 4th June. The minutes of evidence will no doubt soon be available. However, that will be too late for the House to do anything because this is already a done deal and the arrangement was signed, I believe, on 7th June—three days later. Or was it? I assume that the signature was put on the document and that this is a done deal.
  One must ask: why the extreme haste? Why did the agreement have to be signed by that Friday? Because, of course, it must go through the arrangements in the United States. The Senate must debate it, agree to it and sign it into law. The Senate will not hurry that and I really must ask why there was such a rush to sign it without proper discussion in this House through the usual procedures.
  How does the EU-US agreement affect the future bilateral arrangements between the UK and all category 2 countries under the Bill? I ask that because in his presentation to the European Parliament, Mr Vitorino discussed the EU-US co-operation agreement. He said:
  "This is the very first Union agreement in the field of justice and home affairs and it will be an historic precedent".
  That is very significant and must be explained. Just exactly what does that mean? Does it mean that a precedent has been set to enable the EU to negotiate all extradition and other justice and home affairs matters with third countries? If so—a strict interpretation of Mr Vitorino's statement seems to imply that—is not this Bill redundant? That might sound silly but the fact is that if the agreement between the EU and the US sets a precedent, that may very well be the case. I should like to know about that.

  GC 289
  What if any parliamentary procedures will be necessary to implement the EU-US agreement into UK law? I understand that the agreement is binding on the UK. Is that correct? If so, how has that situation arisen? Justice and home affairs are still, as I understand it, intergovernmental matters. Will primary legislation be necessary or will the procedure be by ordinary affirmative order or a negative order?
  I hope that the Committee agrees that this is a legitimate matter to raise in light of this development and that I am right to be concerned about it. I am not the only one to have concerns. I shall quote what one of our colleagues, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said in the European Parliament. Members who know about these things will be very much aware that my views and those of the noble Baroness on the European Union are, in general, poles apart. She said:
  "We have objections to these agreements on grounds of both procedure and content. I am sorry to see that … as others have said, the degree of unwarranted secrecy imposed by the Council has been utterly scandalous. Council is not here today. No adequate explanation has been given. The only possible explanation is the wish to avoid accountability to Parliament. The failure to consult the European Parliament formerly is a disgrace, and the justification for this democratic deficit—that the agreements fall under foreign rather than justice policy—is thin in the extreme. I very much hope that the new EU Constitution will stop this ever happening again because we will have future agreements of this kind. I wish the European public could understand—and one day will—that the real threat to their rights comes not from this Parliament or the Commission—the Community institutions—but from the arrogant, executive powers wielded in intergovernmental cabal by the Council".
  Those are not my words; they are from someone who is very friendly to the European Union, which I am not. I am concerned about the Grand Committee and the rights of this Parliament. I hope that noble Lords will agree that it was correct for me to raise this matter. In so far as he is able—I gave the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, notice that I would raise this matter—I hope that the Minister will answer my questions.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I recognise that in procedural terms it is correct for the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, to raise this matter now. On the first day in Committee, the Question whether Clause 2 should stand part was grouped with my earlier amendments. I said then that I had tabled the vast number of clause stand part debates in relation to the whole of Part I only as a device to enable the deletion of Part 1. I did not wish to remove the right of other noble Lords to have a clause stand part debate whenever that was appropriate. I give notice that when we reach Clause 13, I will speak to the Question whether that clause should stand part. I will use that approach very sparingly.
  The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, raised an extremely important matter. I will not repeat what he said; he asked the right questions. I simply add that the figures show how important extradition to the United States is. I notice that the home affairs report points out that during the three years from 1999 to 2001, the UK extradited 139 fugitives and that of those, 82—or four out of every seven—were extradited to other EU
  GC 290
  member states. The remaining 57 were extradited to non-EU member states. Of those 57, 23 were extradited to the United States. This is a very important matter in numerical terms as well as in relation to matters of principle.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I appreciate that this is a proper matter to raise now in view of what happened in the past 10 days or so. I attended, as it was a public meeting, the meeting of Sub-Committee E on, I believe, 8th June, when my honourable friend Mr Ainsworth gave evidence to us. I heard those proceedings and took no active part. Broadly speaking, I personally confirm the account given by my noble friend Lord Stoddart and want to add one word about it.
  I was a member of Sub-Committee E for many years about 10 to 15 years ago. I remember an occasion when a Minister said that he would like scrutiny of a very important agreement at European level within the week. I can only say that there was something of a rumpus about that. The chairman at the time expressed his displeasure. This time the Minister opened by offering his apologies, but said that he was asking for scrutiny and approval on the same day. All that will appear in the documents of Sub-Committee E.
  I apologise for not giving the Minister notice of this particular point, but it is a special point. There is now on the website a letter from the chairman—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote—of Sub-Committee E to the Minister, which sets out the reactions of the scrutiny sub-committee. If the Minister has the letter in his papers, perhaps he would now, or on a suitable occasion, distribute it to Members of the Grand Committee, not all of whom are sufficiently expert in the modern electronic processes to find it through that route.
  It would be very helpful for noble Lords to see the letter because, in the very respectful manner that noble Lords who chair that committee have always had, it sets out the restrained reactions of a sub-committee which, from observation, I notice were somewhat strong. Without going into detail, the discussion on the EU-US treaty raises a vast number of issues which, beginning with Clause 2, are relevant to this Bill.
  Three documents were approved; I do not remember their precise titles. There is the EU-US treaty, the mutual assistance agreement, and a third document. Perhaps all those documents should be looked at by Members of the Committee and they would see the extent of the matters. The issues include the difficulties of the death penalty in the United States and the extent to which a federal assurance can prevent any action by a state authority, including elected judges and the like, in respect of death penalty executions in the US. The Minister answered all these points with considerable skill, but nevertheless disturbing matters have been raised which the Grand Committee should consider.
  I hope that the Minister recognises that we are placed in a new situation, in which some matters will have to be reopened in the light of what the British

  GC 291
  Government have now done—namely, the limits placed on Parliament in the normal execution of the royal prerogative in signing treaties, and the limits placed on us which will come up directly under certain amendments that we are about to discuss. Therefore, it is very appropriate that the Minister should make a statement at this convenient point as to just what we have been led into by this rash signature in Portugal before proper scrutiny could, in fact and in reality, be given.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Goodhart: The reference that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, made to my noble friend Lady Ludford shows that there are aspects of the agreement with which my party is concerned. So far as the debate we have just been having is concerned, I do not think that now is the appropriate occasion to have what could be described as a free-standing debate on the agreement recently signed between the EU and the USA. However, it would be helpful and important if the Minister could tell us what implications that agreement may have for the contents of this Bill. In addition, I should be interested to know how far the provisions of this Bill have been drafted in order to align the UK extradition law with the EU agreement, which was at that stage not signed but must have been at a fairly advanced stage of negotiation.
  Lord Filkin: First, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for her very generous congratulations to me on my new role. I suggest that she does not quite too prematurely rejoice at my imminent departure because the tentacles of the Home Office are long and strong at times—so I may be having further days on this Bill and it will he a pleasure to work with Members of the Committee.
  I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. Some of these issues are complex and it is right and fair that he should raise his question. I shall go as far as I can today in trying to explain—in part from memory—these issues from my role in negotiating in a dark and secret place, to paraphrase what he said about this issue. I shall go further than that because this issue justifies a fairly full response in writing from the Government to the Committee and any others who are interested. To what extent is there an intersect between this measure and this Bill? We believe that there is virtually none. Nevertheless, Members of the Committee are entitled to have that set out clearly.
  The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is right. There has been an agreement between the EU and the US on extradition, which has been negotiated. The United Kingdom, exercising its Crown prerogative, has indicated its agreement for the EU to sign the agreement as an EU-US treaty. The measure has cleared scrutiny in both Houses of Parliament before the EU indicated its willingness to sign up to it. We believe that the agreement will have virtually no impact on our existing extradition law or on the new treaty because the provisions are essentially between the EU and the US. Our own agreements with the US go beyond and further than this. To put it at its
  GC 292
  simplest: no parliamentary action will be required to bring United Kingdom law into compliance with the EU-US treaty because our existing law and agreements with the US already comply in full.
  The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, also asked a perfectly legitimate question about why there was the urge to reach such an agreement. One should never rush an agreement unless its merits themselves justify it, but it sits against the background of September 11th and the recognition that the EU, as well as the US, wants to have in place effective measures against terrorism. This was part of the intent of responding to the more serious circumstances of which we are aware in the light of September 11th.
  The reason why the EU signed first and why the early signature was important is because the US Senate could not consider it until it had been signed. All our relationships with other category 2 countries will remain unchanged by this agreement. Not only that, but our relationship with the US—to re-emphasise the point—will be governed by our own domestic legislation and our own new bilateral treaty with the US. The agreement makes it clear that it does not apply where there are bilateral provisions which go further.
  The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, also raised a number of questions about how scrutiny operates in this place. I shall not go into detail because it is not the time. Again. I shall touch on that in the letter. Members of the Committee know well the general principles. It is a system of pre-scrutiny of agreements rather than post facto scrutiny. The area of challenge is always when there are effectively confidential negotiations in process, which is a particularly difficult area. Therefore, what happened was that at a certain point it was agreed that the cloak of confidentiality, which normally covers such negotiations, could and should be lifted to allow for relevant member states to have proper scrutiny of that. Both my noble friend Lord Wedderburn and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, referred to that process.
  Indeed, I shall look at the letter from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, on the website and will attach it to the letter that I have promised to write so that other Members of the Committee will not have to search the web. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that perhaps we do not need now to go into this in full. Clearly, it is open to Members in another place if they think our extradition relationship with the US should be considered. Clearly. the Government will respond to such a request. The noble Lord asked to what extent we had been crafting this Bill to make ourselves compliant with the EU-US agreement. The answer to that is not at all.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Before the noble Lord sits down—although in Committee presumably we can go on discussing this ad infinitum—I am not quite clear about the position in relation to the agreement we already have with the United States on extradition matters. The noble Lord said that the EU agreement, which we have signed, does not apply. There are no measures to be taken to bring it into law because we are

  GC 293
  in compliance with it. Let us suppose that government and Parliament decide that they want to alter the present position, and in altering it it ceased to be compliant with the EU-US agreement. What would happen then? Would we be in breach if we then implemented what the Government and Parliament wanted to implement? Could we be brought before the European Court because we refuse to implement something? It is feasible that at a future date we could very much disagree with something in the agreement.
  The other point which concerns me and which the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, did not answer, was the assertion by Mr Vitorino that this set a precedent. Does it? If it sets a precedent, it means that the EU has taken it upon itself to define or to interpret its powers as being able to make agreements with third countries on behalf of this country, whether it is in compliance with our Act—when it becomes an Act—or not. Again, that is a very serious matter. We need assurances about it.
  I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, cannot answer all these questions today or even tomorrow. But perhaps he could write to Members of the Committee in the light of what he said, and in the light of what I have further said, and put that explanation on paper. I should be most grateful if he could.
  Lord Filkin: I shall have an initial stab at answering the question because I believe that we should give as direct and immediate a response as we can. No doubt it will benefit from being added to the letter that I have already promised to write. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is well aware, in a sense, of the nature of inter-governmental treaties. If our Government, using the Crown prerogative, make an agreement, that is an agreement with another state. It therefore places a responsibility on the Government, if they wish to ensure that they can honour such an agreement, to put it into legislative effect if it is necessary to do so through Parliament.
  On these measures, we often have a debate at the beginning of Bills as to what would be the consequences should Parliament say no, and whether Parliament has the right to say no. I repeat: the position is that Parliament is sovereign on such issues. Parliament can say no. If the Government are incompliant with a treaty provision they have made and with what Parliament says, that is non-compliant. I think that that is an accurate statement of the constitutional position.
  Whether or not sanctions will apply against non-compliance—again, I tread in deep waters here—depends under what pillar of the treaty such an agreement has been made. We have referred to such issues previously. I shall need to check on the specific point. The noble Lord raised a hypothetical situation. As I said, while we may need to do nothing whatever now, he raised the argument, "What if we want to change things round domestically and were then noncompliant?". Again, I venture into constitutional theory but my understanding is that Parliament can do
  GC 294
  what Parliament can do. If there is then a noncompliance, whether or not it is sanctionable will depend on the treaty provisions under which it is done. I shall try to answer the specific points in a letter, and will give just a broad interpretation at this point.
  I think that António Vitorino is a very able politician. I have not seen what he said with regard to this agreement. As the EU Commissioner for the JHA I can well believe that he will express to the parliament a degree of pleasure that it had been possible to get 15 member states to agree to this measure. Therefore, he said that perhaps this was an indication of something that the European Union was doing which is useful to ensure that it is negotiating on behalf of its 15 member states an agreement with the US that was agreeable to all 15 member states.
  I repeat or emphasise that in that situation the EU is acting only because all 15 member states have said that they are prepared to agree with the action that the EU intends to take. If those member states had said that they were not in agreement, the EU would not have been able to act. So, it is the carrier for the agreement of the 15 member states who individually state that they are happy to use the EU as a carrier for such a measure.
  There is a further point which I shall touch on briefly because this is not the time to talk about the future of Europe. In discussions on the future of Europe we have been very clear about the importance of preserving our right to conduct bilateral negotiations. We see this as absolutely fundamental in these issues and we should not allow that to be usurped or taken over in any way. I shall respond to any points that I have not answered, on reflection, in a letter to all Members.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am sure that Members of the Committee will agree that this harsh viva voce examination of the Minister should come to an end. I wondered if he would end it by giving that famous reply of a noble Earl at Oxford as a student when asked how he would bar an entail, how he would end a fee tail estate. Perhaps the Minister will adopt his famous reply, "I'd get my man to do it". I am sure that the Minister will require a great deal of assistance in the task he has nobly undertaken. When he does, could he perhaps distribute, along with the letter of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, the very short transcript of the meeting of Sub-Committee E with the Minister, Mr Ainsworth?
  Lord Filkin: I am very happy to do so.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I wonder whether I could return to a point that was made last week. I apologise for the fact that I was not able to be here. Unfortunately I had to be abroad, although the amendment concerned was one which interested me very much. I assure the Minister that I shall not go over what was said but I want to raise certain points which, as far as I can see having read Hansard, were not raised. I refer to the very important point of a warrant

  GC 295
  being issued and used to extradite someone simply for the purpose of questioning, which might not lead to a trial within a reasonable period but might lead to the person being detained for a very long period without a trial taking place or, indeed, no trial taking place.
  As I say, I have read Hansard, albeit rather quickly. It seemed to me that the Minister's reply essentially amounted to stating that Clause 2(3)(b) states clearly:
  "the Part I warrant is issued with a view to"—
  I emphasise the words, "with a view to"—
  "his arrest and extradition … for the purpose of being prosecuted for the offence".
  The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, referred to Article 1 of the framework decision, as did the Minister. It states:
  "The European arrest warrant is a judicial decision issued by a Member State",
  and then the same phrase is used,
  "with a view to the arrest".
  At col. GC 22 of Hansard for 9th June, the Minister repeated Clause 2(3)(b). In the same column he quoted the framework decision and the phrase that I have already quoted. No one seemed to come back on the Minister's speech to ask whether the phrase "with a view to" was sufficient. The Minister said that he would be interested to know if there were any cases and that this has not been of concern. However, surely it is not enough to produce an example of a British citizen who has been extradited. If it is the habit or custom in some countries for people to be held in detention without being brought to trial for a very long period of time. surely that is a matter of concern.
  Certainly, I have read a number of articles that have suggested that in a number of countries it is quite common practice for people to be put under pressure by being detained. The pressure is on them to strike a bargain with the investigating magistrate. They are held for questioning. I did not realise there would be an opportunity to raise this and came unprepared. I do not have the article here, but—
  Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. We have dealt with Amendment No. 30 in Clause 2. That is now over and done with and we are dealing with Clause 2 stand part.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: With great respect to the noble Lord. I am dealing with Clause 2.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: We have been debating this for over half an hour. As the noble Lord was not present last week, perhaps he would be as brief as he humanly can be and make the points that he is entitled to make.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: With the very greatest respect, I accept the ruling of the Deputy Chairman.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: It is not a ruling; I am making a request.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Perhaps I may suggest that there could hardly be a more important matter for any
  GC 296
  parliament to consider than whether someone can be detained without being brought to trial. I was not able to be present last week. If noble Lords think that I am repeating points that were made they can tell me, but I do not think that I am. The point I have just made about other countries was not made. I have read the debate and have it here. The point I want to make is very relevant to the adequacy or otherwise of Clause 2(3)(b). We are debating whether Clause 2(3)(b) should stand part of Clause 2. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, rightly corrects me. We are debating whether Clause 2, which includes Clause 2(3)(b), should as a whole stand part. If Clause 2(3)(b) is inadequate I would submit that Clause 2 should not stand part because it is the most important part.
  The point I wish to press is that I have read quite a number of articles, including many by John Mortimer QC, suggesting that in France, Belgium, Spain and Germany it is common practice for people to be held without being brought to trial. I made reference to the fact that in Belgium, one person has been held in prison on remand for in excess of five years without being brought to trial. That is a case which raises a question mark about the relationship between the judiciary and politics in Belgium. Certainly, there have been comments in France about this practice.
  Therefore it seems to me, particularly in the case of extradition, we should ask whether one can be satisfied with the words "with a view to". The Minister said that that had been the practice since the 1989 Act, no more and no less. That is all right, but in those days extradition procedures took much longer. They took the 17 months which the Minister is now trying to reduce to three months.
  The Minister also said:
  "If … there was then a doubt in the district judge's mind that the request was for a prosecution case—if he believed it might be for a fishing trip or an interrogation",
  and then stated, "I should have thought", which is riot the strongest wording,
  "that he had the power to strike Out the application".—[Official Report, 9/6/03; col. GC 23.]
  I accept that the prima facie hearing has been gone for some time and that with a prima facie hearing one could have tested whether an extradition request was for the purpose of interrogation. However, as regards the removal of double criminality, which is one way of opening up a case and in some cases exploring some of the issues involved, perhaps in those cases the district judge—if double criminality still existed—would have had a view as to whether or not the extradition request was a fishing expedition.
  I should like to hear the Minister comment more about the practice in other countries. There are many points which cause me concern, but this is the one which causes the most. I do not know whether the Minister saw a Written Question which I tabled, which asked about British citizens held in prison in the European Union. According to the Answer supplied by the Foreign Office, there was no one in the position of having been held hut not charged. It is unfair to ask

  GC 297
  the Minister about a Question which was answered by the Foreign Office, although I imagine it was passed to him in view of the Bill.
  Perhaps the Minister could distinguish between the words, "accused", "charged" and "indicted". I would be particularly interested eventually to know in what sense there were zero UK citizens abroad who had been held without being charged. I am very sceptical of that in the light of the proceedings one reads about in articles by eminent Labour lawyers such as John Mortimer QC.
  I apologise for returning to an issue but it is a very important part of the stand part debate. I do not think that the thrust of my argument was put previously.
  Lord Filkin: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, for the question he raised. I think that I understand the two essential limbs of it. He referred to whether the wording, "with a view to prosecution" opens up the risk that someone could be extradited when the requesting state was essentially saying that it wanted to put this person on trial and was ready to do so but in practice wanted to get the person there with the hope that they would be able to prosecute them but using their presence as a mechanism to extract further information to increase the likelihood of a prosecution. Perhaps I put words in his mouth, but I sense that that was the gap that the noble Lord was trying to explore in the use of the phraseology, "with a view to".
  Our position is clear: that people should not be extradited for interrogation or questioning; they should be extradited only in the circumstances we have discussed under Part 1 when the requesting state says, "We have evidence which we think is sufficient to put this person on trial. We want to have them within our jurisdiction so that we can put them on trial". I believe that the wording we have is appropriate. It goes back to the question of whether it is "with a view to". They need to have that person in their state before they can put the prosecution into effect.
  I shall reflect, no doubt over the summer, as to whether it is beyond doubt in that sense. I do not think that on that point there is a difference; it is whether the wording captures the issue. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, is quite right; the current legislation is completely vague on that point. It does not mean that everything is perfect. On the other hand, we are not aware of problems. I am not saying that means that there will never be problems in the future but we are going further than the current legislation goes in this Bill. We are tightening up extradition law in this country as a consequence of this measure rather than weakening it.
  There is a further point as regards the ECHR obligations of a district judge and whether he thinks that the person's rights under the ECHR will be satisfied. I shall look at what the Foreign Office wrote in response to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. I shall see whether we have any information on citizens languishing abroad, to paraphrase what the noble Lord said. As I indicated earlier, I shall reflect on
  GC 298
  the thrust of his argumentation and see whether we should change our mind on the matter. I shall, of course, correspond with the noble Lord accordingly.
  4.15 p.m.
  Viscount Bledisloe: If the noble Lord is to reconsider the matter, will he consider one further point? Assuming that the wording in Clause 2(3)(b) is limited to a formed intent to prosecute with sufficient evidence, and not an intent to investigate, and that the warrant contains the statement that that is so, has the district judge, or anyone, any power to intervene, if he is convinced that that statement is not true and that what is actually intended is to interrogate someone once he is in the foreign territory? Suppose the magistrate has issued a whole series of warrants to this effect and there is clear evidence that the previous 12 people who had been extradited pursuant to a warrant from that magistrate in the foreign territory were held for a very long time and interrogated and not brought to trial. Has the district judge any power—I cannot find any—to say that he will not extradite because he does not believe the statement?
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before the Minister replies. in view of the most important strengthened assurance that he has given today—I believe that he had already agreed to reconsider some of the wording—to view them with care, would he note that the phrase is in a sense even weaker than the case put by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont? It is a warrant issued not merely
  "with a view to his arrest".
  but,
  "with a view to his arrest … for the purpose of being prosecuted".
  If the clause said,
  "a warrant issued with a view to prosecution"
  at least that would—
  Baroness Turner of Camden: It states:
  "for the purpose of being sentenced".
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: No, that is another measure. I am discussing Clause 2(3)(b). I apologise to my noble friend but I think that is correct. As I say, Clause 2(3)(b) states:
  "with a view to his arrest … for the purpose of being prosecuted".
  That does not guarantee anything. When the Minister is considering that matter and thinking of a change in the wording—which I very much hope he will do—will he also consider the evidence provided by Fair Trials Abroad on the new electronic means of communication? That body mentions a number of cases where people have been kept—in some cases incommunicado—without being prosecuted.
  If my memory is right, there is clear evidence of people who were arrested, interrogated and were about to be prosecuted but then were not. The clause would obviously cover that. Meanwhile, they can be interrogated on anything, unless, of course, you are the Prime Minister of Italy in which case at the moment you cannot be charged with anything at all. In my

  GC 299
  respectful submission the Minister must consider what the words actually mean. If he is going to consider—as I hope he will—giving a British judge the power to look at the relevant words and decide whether they are valid, he must look at the words even more carefully because, as they stand, a British judge would not have a chance of knowing whether the subjective test would be met.
  Lord Filkin: I shall not weary the Committee by repeating several times the commitments I have already given as that would be tedious. In general terms, international agreements on extradition operate on a basis of an assumption of trust and honour between member states. They have to do so.
  In the circumstance that was instanced of a member state acting in breach of the agreement—I believe the example was given of 12 such occasions—and that claimed to be extraditing someone for prosecution but was in fact extraditing that person for interrogation, that state would be in breach of the agreement. Those would be issues that at one level the relevant state would take up with the other member state. I am sure that the district judge would be informed of the matter when he or she exercised their discretion and considered whether ECHR tests would be met as part of their decision to extradite or not to extradite. We believe that they have a locus and a leverage in that respect. But let us not debate the matter further now. I have given an undertaking to reconsider the issue and to respond on it.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I apologise for having interrupted the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, in the midst of his speech. I was merely conscious of the fact that there are some 208 further clauses to be dealt with. If everyone can speak as briefly as they can manage, we might get there before we are too old to listen. It does not affect me personally but it does affect the Members of the Committee.
  Clause 3 [Arrest under certified Part 1 warrant]:
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbottsmoved Amendment No. 31:
  Page 3, line 26, at end insert—
  "( ) For the purposes of this section—
  —"constable" shall he a constable of the United Kingdom including a constable of the Royal Parks Police, and
  "customs officer" shall be a United Kingdom customs officer."
  The noble Lord said: We come to Clause 3 which is concerned with the arrest under a Part 1 warrant. There are grouped with Amendment No. 3 a series of other amendments which are consequential. Amendment No. 47 is concerned with provisional arrest. Amendment No. 152 is concerned with arrest under a Part 2 warrant. Amendment No. 169 is concerned with provisional arrest under a Part 2 warrant. They all address the same issue in different parts of the Bill.
  I appreciate the clarification which the Government gave at Report stage in another place when they tabled an amendment which removed the ambiguous phrase
  GC 300
  "appropriate person" from Clause 3, which deals with those people in the UK who may execute a certified Part I warrant. The Government then limited the ability to execute a Part 1 warrant to a constable, customs officer or service policeman in any part of the United Kingdom.
  However, I feel that this particular issue needs more scrutiny. I have tabled these amendments for three reasons. First, I am unclear as to whether the drafting of Clause 3(2), as amended in another place, really achieves what the Government intended to do. The subsection reads:
  "The warrant may be executed by a constable or a customs officer in any part of the United Kingdom".
  In my understanding that means that a constable, be he French, English or Dutch, who is in any part of the United Kingdom may execute the warrant. In fairness to the Government, they have made it very clear that only British personnel should be able to make an arrest under a warrant. The then Minister Mr Ainsworth said in Standing Committee in another place:
  "No foreign law enforcement officials will be designated to execute a European arrest warrant in this country. That is not what the Government want or have ever intended".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Cttee D, 9/1/03; col. 64.]
  But perhaps the Minister would agree that the subsection that we are discussing could be better drafted to reflect that point specifically.
  Secondly, there are the problems of different types of police. When Mr Ainsworth was initially challenged in another place about the appropriate person who could execute a warrant, he responded by saying that no other person other than a constable would be able to execute a European arrest warrant. He then went on to say that Customs and Excise and various service police forces were significant players in the area and that it was those "sort of people" whom the Government viewed as "appropriate". Mr Ainsworth said:
  "Constables, Customs officers and members of service police authorities are the only sort of people who we foresee in the role".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Cttee D, 9/1/03; col. 65.]
  Lord Clinton-Davis: Why has the noble Lord omitted constables from the Transport Police? I believe that there are others who should be included.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the noble Lord for those comments. We shall discuss that issue in a second. The amendment we have tabled is probing and is intended to explore whether Royal Parks Police and other such personnel are included. Would they be the sort of people that the Minister's colleague, Mr Ainsworth, had in mind?
  When I tabled the amendment I was reminded by my noble friend Lord Bridgeman that the Police Reform Act 2002 has a long list of different types of police. Section 86(3) reads:
  "A person meets the requirements of this subsection if he is attested or sworn as a constable and—

  (a) he is a member of a police force maintained under section 2 of the Police Act 1996:

  GC 301

  (b) he is a member of the metropolitan police force or of the City of London police force;

  (c) he is a regular constable within the meaning of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967;

  (d) he is a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland;

  (e) he is a member of the National Crime Squad;

  (f) he is a member of the Ministry of Defence Police appointed on the nomination of the Secretary of State under section 1 of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987;

  (g) he is a member of the British Transport Police Force;

  (h) he is a member of the States of Jersey Police Force;

  (i) he is a member of the salaried police force of the Island of Guernsey;

  (j) he is a member of the Isle of Man Constabulary; or

  (k) he is engaged with NCIS on a period of temporary service".

  Will the Minister clarify whether or not all those different types of police are included in the phrase,
  "constable, customs officer and service policeman"?
  Thirdly, as regards Amendment No. 152, despite the changes made to Clause 3(2) in another place on Report, there appears to have been no such alteration in Part 2 of the Bill. Clause 70(5) states:
  "A warrant issued under this section may—
  (a) be executed by any person to whom it is directed or by any constable".
  Perhaps the Minister will explain why the wording is not the same for Part 2 as for Part 1 in that respect? For my part, I do not believe that "any person" should be permitted to execute a Part 2 warrant. Indeed, the use of the words "any person" seems to be even more dangerous than "appropriate person", which was previously found to be unsatisfactory.
  Further, why the phrase "any constable" in Part 2 and "a constable" in Part 1? Amendment No. 152 addresses those issues in respect of a Part 2 arrest and Amendment No. 169 in respect of a provisional warrant under Part 2.
  Finally, perhaps for the convenience of the Committee, the Minister could address one other inconsistency. That is the omission of the phrase "the customs officer" in Part 2 whereas it appears in Part 1. Clause 3(2) reads:
  "The warrant may be executed by a constable or a customs officer",
  but Clause 70(5) reads,
  "by any person to whom it is directed or by any constable".
  There is no mention of the customs officer.
  This is an issue which much concerned the Committee in another place. We would benefit from some tidying-up of the drafting or at least some clarification from the Minister. I beg to move.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I have an amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Turner which has been grouped with the amendment that we are discussing. My amendment is put forward very hesitantly but also in a probing spirit. What the noble Lord has just said must surely be right in certain respects. We hope that the Minister will reassure us on the matter.
  GC 302
  The issue that we are discussing must surely be a matter for a United Kingdom constable. That matter should be cleared up. If the Government intend the measure to include a Belgian constable, they had better say so. But I believe that everything the Government have said so far indicates that they intend a United Kingdom officer to be involved. That should be stated in the Bill.
  The modern habit of Ministers saying, "Oh well, it is not down on paper but we shall give you a Pepper v. Hart assurance that you can quote in the courts"—after that famous decision which enabled Ministers to be quoted in the courts—is being rather strained these days. Ministers should not delight in giving Pepper v Hart assurances; they should be ashamed of doing so, because it means that there is something wrong in the drafting that must be cleared up. Surely "United Kingdom" should somehow be included in the Bill.
  We are then left with the problem of "constable". Like most ancient offices, from Lord Chancellor onwards, there is something hazy about "constable" and there is always something hazy about its reform. I fully support the noble Lord in his tabling of Amendment No. 31 as a probing amendment to get the matter out in the open and have it properly discussed, as, so far, it has certainly not been.
  I tabled an amendment about a specific matter regarding prison officers about which I am slightly hesitant. I can quickly summarise my train of thought as follows: in litigation in 1994, it was discovered—by people, like me, who were ignorant of the matter, at any rate—that prison officers, because they had the powers of a constable, could not form a trade union. At that point, they were regarded as falling within the prohibition of the police and constables to form trade unions. I have put the matter very broadly, but that is the nub of it. The issue was, in a sense, cured in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, in which Section 126 provides that,
  "employment legislation shall have effect as if an individual who as a member of the prison service acts in a capacity in which he has the powers … of a constable were not, by virtue of his so having those powers … to be regarded as in police service"—
  for any provision of that legislation.
  Although prison officers are not regarded as being "in police service", the Act deprived them of their right to strike anyway, which is a fashionable idea these days. Unless I am wrong, in the light of the definitions that the noble Lord has read out, which exclude prison officers, they appear still to have the powers of a constable. If I have overlooked anything, my amendment is unnecessary. But there are people around who have the powers of a constable. It would not be impossible for a court to regard someone who has the powers of a constable, whether or not in the police service for various purposes such as forming trade unions, as falling within the definition.
  I referred to a prison officer in my amendment. It states:
  "'constable' does not include a prison officer or any other person who has only the powers of a constable".

  GC 303
  If there are such people around, and if prison officers are among them, they should clearly be excluded here from the definition, because it would be absurd for them to serve European arrest warrants.
  I therefore support what has been said on the other amendments moved by the noble Lord on the Opposition Benches and press the Government to consider the one in my name.
  4.30 p.m.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: attached my name to my noble friend's amendment because the question of who may execute a warrant is very important. Clause 3 stipulates who may do so: a constable or customs officer. It is important that there be a measure of trust in the person carrying out the function. A prison officer does not seem appropriate to carry out an arrest in this context, even though he may be regarded as a constable. For that reason, and because it is a probing amendment, I hope that the Minister can give us a reasonable response, as it is important.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: As ever, I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who were involved in the discussion. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for tabling the amendment so that we can go through the issues still obviously causing concern to Members who were unclear about some of the points after they were debated in another place.
  The issue is who may carry out an arrest in this country in an extradition case. Various rumours flew about to the effect that foreign police officers would be allowed to come to Britain and carry out arrests on the basis of a European arrest warrant. So far as we are concerned, nothing could be further from the truth.
  It was certainly an interesting experience to see first hand the degree of paranoia that the issue has raised. The Government have absolutely no plans—
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Perhaps I may assist the Committee, as we said earlier that we were trying to move on. That argument was deployed in another place but not here. The Minister has no need to try to respond to an argument that has not been made. My noble friend has tabled some very important probing amendments. I would be grateful if he could address those.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I appreciate entirely that point. I am not trying to be disrespectful, but the matter stimulated debate earlier. I wish to make clear on the record that the Government have no plans to allow foreign police officers to exercise powers of arrest in this country. We recognise that there was something to be said for putting the matter beyond all doubt. Accordingly, the Bill was amended in another place, as has been acknowledged on Report, to make it clear that the only people with powers of arrest in Part I are United Kingdom police officers, United Kingdom customs officers and United Kingdom service police officers. That is clearly set out in Clauses 3 and 5.
  GC 304
  A service police officer is defined in Clause 3(6), and again in Clause 5(5). I hope that there is no suggestion of any outstanding ambiguity about that. It may not have been noticed that in Clause 203(6), which defines a customs officer, there is no ambiguity and no possibility of a foreign customs officer being included.
  On the term "constable", the office of constable is established in common law. On appointment, every constable in the police force must,
  "be attested as a constable by making the appropriate declaration".
  Thus the Royal Parks Police are covered by the relevant provisions in the Bill as drafted as are the British Transport Police, the City of London Police and all the bodies that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, read.
  The use of the phrase "a constable" is common in other legislation; for example, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. No foreign police officer could make the necessary declaration or be attested so there can be no possibility of a foreign police officer falling within the term "constable". Equally, the term "constable" does not encompass prison officers, so I hope that I can set at rest the mind of my noble friends Lord Wedderburn and Lady Turner on that point. I suggest that the amendments are unnecessary. Furthermore, if we seek to give a statutory definition to the term "constable", we could call into question all the other legislation where the term is used and the basis of the common law definition.
  I shall refer briefly to Part 2, in which the powers of arrest are conferred on a constable or any person to whom a warrant issued by a UK judge is directed. There is one simple reason why we have adopted this formulation. It is the tried and trusted one, and the wording is virtually identical to that in Section 8(5) of the Extradition Act 1989. Members of the Committee should be familiar with the wording. Again, the amendments to Part 2 are, I suggest, unnecessary and potentially harmful for the reasons that I have already given. We have amended the Bill to make clear that no one other than UK law enforcement officers may carry out arrests in this country.
  I wish to clarify something that I said earlier in case I have left any doubt. I said that all the people that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, mentioned would fall within the definition of "constable". For the purposes of this legislation, the exceptions are the police officers of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man. They are considered a constable only when acting in their jurisdiction. That clarification is important.
  The omission of "customs officer" in Clauses 70 and 72 is dealt with by amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Scotland, which appear on today's Marshalled List. They are numbered as 148A, 152A, 169A, 180A and so on. They put beyond doubt the issue that the noble Lord raised.

  GC 305
  I think that I have covered all the issues raised during that debate. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for causing any offence by suggesting that paranoia was present in this room. I can feel that it is not.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I, for one, am extremely grateful to my noble friend, with the footnote exception of his reference to paranoia, which, with the greatest respect, is perhaps best forgotten. But I was too slow to understand exactly what he said about the reason for not inserting a definition. He told Members of the Committee that "constable" would not include anyone with the powers of a constable. It might avoid litigation if that were stated in the Bill.
  If I am wrong, Hansard will prove me so, but I think that I am right in saying that his reason for not including a definition was that it might call into question the common law definition or definitions already in existence in other statutes. Could the Minister expand on that? That would be the case only if somehow the Government got the definition wrong under the common law tests and in other legislation.
  The Minister is asking us to accept that "constable" must be understood through legislation by implied reference to definitions in common law and other statutes. So when I am arrested—I heartily hope that it does not happen—and I ask the gentleman presenting me with the necessary documents, "Who are you?" and he says, "I am Plod. I am a constable", and I ask, "A constable?" and he says, "I am a tested constable" and I ask, "What is that?", he would have to reply, "Ah, I cannot tell you that. You will have to look up the common law and the other relevant statutes". If there were a definition, he could say quite reasonably, "Just look at Section 3(9). There is a list, and I am one of those"—that is, a constable of the Royal Parks Police, the Transport Police or any of the other headings that there ought to be.
  If the Government do not have those headings, how can they expect an ordinary citizen to understand whether someone is really a constable within the purposes of the Bill? I am entitled to know who is arresting me and whether he is the proper person. The Government have shown that that is correct, because, quite rightly, they have at least included an understandable point of reference for customs officers. What they have done for customs officers proves that they can do it for constables. It is very reasonable to give us a precise explanation of who is the customs officer who can act under the Bill. However, the Government will not do the same thing for constables. They tell us that we must understand that by the ether and osmosis of constitutional understanding that is supposed to afflict every ordinary citizen.
  I press the Minister that perhaps that is an unreasonable position, and one that certainly does not justify the absence of a definition in the Bill, in view of all the many uncertainties displayed in the debate.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has raised a question about
  GC 306
  definitions that might run wider than that before the Committee for consideration. I do not know; I am not an expert in these matters. Nor am I expert in the origin of the common law definition of a constable, but it is the definition on which we rely and it has a long history. However, I am advised that if we were to define constable in terms—the noble Lord did not raise terms—it would call into question where constable is not defined in all other legislation. That is the nub of the matter.
  That probably does not satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, who is after all one for precision. He is rightly so; precision helps us in our deliberations. However, that would be the effect. If he wants to raise the issue of providing for a statutory definition of "constable" where we have relied on the common law understanding of the term, that question probably runs rather wider than that we are considering in the terms of this legislation.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I begin by saying how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for their support for the amendments. It is inherently unsatisfactory when the Bill is not entirely clear but the Government say that they have no plans to do something.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Why is my noble friend so keen that only British policemen can arrest people in this country? It would be much better if foreign policemen could arrest people in this country. Then we would see what the purpose of the Bill was. That purpose is to make people subject to foreign law and deprive them of the protection that they have had in court in the past. It may lead to them being taken out of this country purely for the purposes of interrogation, not for trial and imprisonment. We have had no response on the clause stand part debate. It would be much better if we had gendarmes marching up and down London threatening people with warrants.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I shall not be tempted down that particular road. However, my noble friend has a serious point. The Government say that they have no such plans. I made it punctiliously clear by quoting from the debate in another place that we never said that the Government had any such plans. What is the danger of putting "United Kingdom" into the Bill? It would not do any harm, and it would answer some of the points and concerns that have been raised in all parts of the Committee.
  It is clear beyond peradventure that the Minister and his colleagues elsewhere in government do not wish non-UK constables to arrest people in this country. However, the Minister will not be here for ever; in fact, we know that he will probably be here for a very short time indeed. Therefore, it would be nice to have that in the Bill.
  With regard to the question of the definition, my noble friend Lady Anelay points out that in the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill, on the Committee

  GC 307
  on which I did not serve, "constable" was defined as a UK constable. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, led for the Government on that Bill. Therefore he will know that, so perhaps we can have a look at that matter.
  I am delighted to realise that the Government have picked up on the points about Customs officers. It is a hit hard on those of us slaving away in the salt mines to pick up amendments that were tabled only on the day of the Committee and be able to appreciate them. However, I am glad that the inadequacies and inaccuracies—perhaps I should say inconsistencies—as regards Customs officers in Parts 1 and 2 have been corrected. We look forward to reading those amendments with care. However, we deserve the right to come back for absolute clarity. We are entitled to ask for that, and to make it absolutely clear on behalf of our fellow citizens what the actual remit of who may do the arresting is. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 [Person arrested under Part 1 warrant]:
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbottsmoved Amendment No. 33:
  Page 3, line 30, leave out "and he asks to be shown the warrant"
  The noble Lord said: Clause 4 concerns the actual position of the person arrested under a Part I warrant, his ability to see the warrant under which his arrest has taken place and the speed with which he must be shown it. The consequential amendments, Amendments Nos. 33 and 36, are concerned with those two issues in respect of a Part I warrant. Amendments Nos. 154 and 170 are concerned with the same issue of arrest and provisional arrest under Part 2. Amendments Nos. 157 and 172 are concerned with the time scale in relation to that issue. Some Liberal Democrat amendments are in the same group, to which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will wish to speak.
  The amendments focus on Clause 4(2) and the consequential provisions in Part 2, Clauses 71(2) and 73(2). Clause 4(2) states:
  "If neither the warrant nor a copy of it was shown to the person at the time of his arrest and he asks to be shown the warrant, the warrant or a copy of it must be shown to him as soon as practicable after his request".
  We do not propose to challenge the fact that an arrest can take place if the warrant or a copy of it is not to hand. Understandably, there are circumstances in which that might be necessary. However, we have some fundamental difficulties with the subsection.
  First, there is no obligation to show an arrested person the warrant or a copy of it unless he asks to be shown it. As Liberty pointed out in a briefing—I am sure that other Members of the Committee have had it—there is also no obligation to inform the person of his right to request to see the warrant or a copy of it. Those facing extradition may well be foreign and therefore unfamiliar with their rights in the United Kingdom. It is surely vital, then, that the Bill states
  GC 308
  that a warrant or a copy must be shown to the person, whether he asks to see it or not. That is what Amendment No. 33 seeks to achieve.
  Secondly, Amendment No. 36 puts a time limit on the period within which the person must be shown the warrant or a copy of it. We feel that "as soon as practicable" is too vague. It is not acceptable for someone to be held for more than five hours without seeing the warrant that authorises their arrest. We selected five hours because it is the length of time limit employed in the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill within which foreign policemen would be permitted to enter the country in hot pursuit. However, we are quite open to an alternative time scheme or limit if one is proposed. The importance lies in the principle of having some limit shown in the Bill.
  So far as the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, are concerned, we are perfectly happy with the insertion of "arrest" in the place of "request", but feel that our amendments go further in offering more protection for the rights of the person arrested. We are rather ambivalent on being "given" as opposed to being "shown" a copy of the warrant, so we shall wait for the persuasive powers of his oratory to convince us of the rightness of that cause.
  The key issue behind the group of amendments, so far as we are concerned, is that the person must be informed of the charges against him automatically in writing, and he must be informed promptly. I beg to move.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I remind the Committee that, should the amendment be agreed to, Amendment No. 34, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, would have been pre-empted.
  Lord Goodhart: I would like to speak to four amendments in the group. Amendments Nos. 34, 37, 153 and 158. Amendments Nos. 34 and 37 follow Amendment No. 33, which I fully support and would have put my name to had there been space to do so. Amendment No. 34 is incorrect, I am afraid. It should be a reference to "shown" in line 31 rather than line 30, where I agree that it is pre-empted by Amendment No. 33. I am entirely happy with and strongly support Amendment No. 33.
  The aim of my amendments is to ensure that the subject of the warrant is always given a copy of it—not the original; that would be inappropriate—either on arrest or as soon as practicable after arrest. The warrant is an extremely important document that will contain a very considerable amount of information. For instance, it has to contain under Clause 2(2) the statement and information required. It is clearly essential that the person arrested should be told in a document—one that he is entitled not merely to be shown but to keep—why he is being arrested and on what grounds his extradition is sought. Therefore, a copy of the warrant should be provided automatically to the subject of it. It should not have to be asked for.
  Having expressed full support for Amendment No. 33, I am less happy with Amendments Nos. 35 and 36. I am not sure that it is appropriate for the warrant to

  GC 309
  be in a language that its subject understands, for two reasons, one of which is that it may not be possible for the person serving it to know for certain what languages its subject understands. The warrant has to be prepared before the person is arrested and can be interrogated about which languages he knows.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord's oratory, but is not Amendment No. 35 in a separate group? We will come to the issue.
  Lord Goodhart: Oh! I am sorry. I shall simply deal with Amendment No. 36. I sympathise with the reasoning behind it, but I have to say that I see no logical connection between the Bill and the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill. I would have thought it undesirable to put such a time limit into primary legislation. I think that "as soon as practicable" will do for these purposes. What I have said applies equally to the corresponding amendments to Part 2.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I put my name to Amendment No. 33, which I regret, only because it prevented the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, from putting his name to it. The amendment is very sensible. To put it somewhat strongly, the whole process is reduced to a kind of inferior parlour game. When a person objects to being arrested and says, "I do not know what it's all about", he is told, "Ha! You didn't ask for the warrant so you can't have it".
  I do not know how many Members of the Committee know anyone who has been arrested by a policeman. Very often, such people are quite frightened and not in a state where they can ask for anything. They are simply desperate not to be arrested. The provision is absurd. The amendment is a test of Home Office obduracy. If the Minister has a brief headed "Resist", I suggest with great respect that he puts it aside and addresses the common sense of the matter. The warrant should be produced. The subsection would still continue, quite reasonably, to say "as soon as practicable". What on earth is wrong with that?
  I and my noble friend Lady Turner tabled Amendment No. 39, which is grouped with Amendment No. 33. It is entirely my fault that, as it appears on the latest Marshalled List, it is slightly altered from its original tabling. It now reads that there would be a new subsection saying:
  "Where at the time of the arrest the person asks for an explanation of statements set out in the warrant, the person making the arrest shall take steps to provide it at that time or as soon as reasonably practicable thereafter".
  I take it to be common ground that it is desirable for the person being arrested to know why he is being arrested. That may be wholly clear in the warrant but, despite all the statements and details that the Bill says that it must carry, that may not be the case. The amendment would put the responsibility on the arresting authority to do what is reasonably practicable to see that he or she knows the reason.
  GC 310
  One answer that is often given in discussion of this matter is that we should let the person's lawyer explain the reason to him. That might have the advantage of someone who is favourable to the arrested person wanting to get quite clearly in his mind what he is being arrested for. However, there are all sorts of problems with that. First, the arrested person may not have access to a lawyer, or certainly not in time to prevent deprivation of liberty on grounds that are unknown. That is why the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee concluded that the arrested person should be informed of the matters for which he has been arrested.
  The availability of lawyers to the arrested person may be a problem, if that person is surrendered to a foreign jurisdiction. The investigations of Fair Trials Abroad show, in the organisation's report for 2002–3 that is available electronically, that in France, Belgium, Italy and Spain it is very difficult to get a lawyer or legal assistance. Indeed, in France of all places, it is reported that the,
  "police discourage people held in custody from contacting lawyers".
  People were routinely persuaded to sign confessions in the absence of legal advice. That is the organisation's finding, and it has made a lot of inquiries into those matters. Legal advice may not be available or sufficient for the arrested person to know fully what he is being arrested for. He has a right to know that. and reasonable steps should be taken to inform him. That is the point of Amendment No. 39, which I hope that the Minister will view favourably.
  5 p.m.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: I support the amendments spoken to by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, and Amendment No. 33, which seems eminently sensible and which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson.
  In the case of Amendment No. 39, we may be dealing with people who are vulnerable and frightened, and it is necessary to ensure that such people realise the reasons for their arrest. That is why we tabled our amendment, which states that if a person asks for an explanation of the statements,
  "the person making the arrest shall take steps to provide it at that time or as soon as reasonably practicable".
  That seems eminently sensible and only fair and reasonable. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will feel inclined to accept our suggestions. If the Government do not like the wording, they might at least accept what we are saying in principle.
  Viscount Bledisloe: It seems beyond doubt that a person who has been arrested should as soon as possible be given a copy of the document on which he has been arrested. That is the only place where he can find out what he has been arrested for, as it contains not only the charge but also the statement and the information. If he has not got that, how an earth can he know what he is to do about it and whether he committed the offence in question?

  GC 311
  If the Minister is minded to oppose the amendment, will he tell us what the situation is if someone is arrested for an offence in England and charged by police? Surely, the police are required to give me a copy of the charge before I leave on bail, so that I can go to my lawyer and say, "This is what I am being charged with, what am I to do about it?" I cannot conceive of any ground on which he should not be given a copy of the warrant, whether he asks for it or not. That would be very simple to do, and it is essential to do it.
  I confess that I am somewhat less persuaded by Amendment No. 39. It seems to be asking a bit much of the unfortunate constable that he is asked to give an explanation of the offence of Holocaust denial, for example. That may not be intimately within the purview of his knowledge. If one has been given a copy of the document, at least in this country one should be able to go off and get advice about what it really means. However, I see no possible grounds, although the Minister may try to find some, for not accepting Amendments Nos. 33 and 34—assuming that Amendment No. 34 is amending line 31, not line 30.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The noble Viscount may notice that Amendment No. 39 says that steps shall be taken to provide the explanation,
  "as soon as reasonably practicable".
  It may be that the constable can do that when he cannot actually articulate the full finery of the matter himself.
  Viscount Bledisloe: I am still a bit pushed to see how Constable Plod can get hold of a person who can give the man a lecture on Holocaust denial. It may be that his chief inspector could arrange that, but I do not believe that Constable Plod could do so.
  Lord Filkin: The effect of Amendments Nos. 33, 34, 36, 154, 157, 158 and 171 is straightforward enough. They require the police to show the warrant or a copy of the warrant to a person arrested under a Part 1 warrant, if it was not shown at the time of arrest. Some of the amendments provide that that must be within five hours of arrest.
  Clause 4, as it is currently drafted, requires the person to be shown the warrant or a copy of it, if he or she so requests, as soon as practicable after arrest. I would ask Members of the Committee to bear in mind that that applies only where the warrant has not already been shown at the time of arrest. In the vast majority of cases, the arresting officer will be in possession of the warrant at the time of arrest and will show it to the person at the point of arrest. However, that might not always be possible, hence the second part of the clause which gives the person the right to request to see the warrant, or be released, if the request is not met.
  The amendments place the onus of responsibility on the police to show the person the warrant, rather than the person having to ask for it. We have resisted that formulation as it represents a departure from UK domestic practice. In domestic arrest cases there is no
  GC 312
  obligation to show the arrested person the warrant, unless they request it. Section 125 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, as amended, sets that out.
  Members of the Committee will have spotted that the requirement is for the warrant to be shown rather than given to the arrested person, which is the point on which Amendments Nos. 34 and 153 turn. The central issue is that we do not want extradition practice to be out of line with domestic provisions, not least because any inadvertent failure to show the person the warrant would lead to the person's discharge. In the vast majority of cases the person is shown the warrant at the earliest opportunity; the police code of practice required under Part 4 of the Bill will require that as best practice.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: It may be my ignorance, but I understand from reading the newspapers that it has sometimes been the case that when a warrant has been faultily drafted, that has resulted in charges being dropped against someone. Surely, one cannot load the system so much in favour of custody that the arrested person is to be deprived of a document which, if he handed it to his lawyer and. his lawyer found that it was defective, might result in his release. Is that not loading the system too much one way?
  Lord Filkin: If the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, lets me complete my explanation, he may judge whether it answers his point or not. I have a lot to say. so it may help if I say the totality of it and then open up to any further questioning if required.
  In order to ensure that the provision is complied with, the draft code of practice for the police sets out police powers under Part 4 of the Bill. That makes it clear that, on arrival at the police station, the person must be told about their right to request to see the warrant. That is explicit in chapter 1 of the code, paragraph 4.3B iii. The paragraph states:
  "When a person is brought to a police station under arrest, the custody officer must make sure the person is told clearly about the right to request to be shown the warrant or a copy of the warrant".
  Chapter 1, in paragraph 4.4A iv of the code, also makes it clear that, on arrest, the detainee must be given a written notice setting out the right to request to be shown the warrant or a copy of the warrant under which the person was arrested.
  I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, will be reassured to know that in domestic procedures governed by code C, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 also applies at this stage of the process. That means that a custody officer is required to mark on the custody record that the person has been told about their rights. The arrested person signs the custody record to confirm that. What is more, officers are alerted in the code of practice to the fact that if the warrant or a copy of the warrant is not shown to the person as soon as practicable after it is requested, under Clauses 4(2), 71(2) and 73(2), the person must be taken to be discharged. We have produced a checklist to be used by custody officers that draws attention to that powerful sanction. An example of that checklist can be found in annex A of the draft code of practice.

  GC 313
  The code of practice has been put out for a three-month public consultation period recently. We very much welcome the views of Members of the Committee on the measures. We believe that it is a powerful expression in practice of what we want to achieve, consistent with domestic regulation practices.
  There is another factor, which is relevant in domestic cases but may be particularly pertinent in extradition cases, and which Members of the Committee have identified in tabling their amendments. There will certainly be cases where the person arrested does not speak English or is not fluent in the language. In such cases, simply showing the person the warrant whether he asks for it or not would not be effective. It is far better that it is shown to the person's lawyer at a time of the lawyer's choosing than to the person who cannot comprehend it at the time of the police's choosing.
  The Bill entitles everyone arrested under Part 1 or Part 2 to free legal advice and we are confident that any lawyer would demand to see a copy of the warrant on the basis of which their client was being held, if that had not already happened. Members of the Committee will probably be aware that following discussions in Committee in another place, we amended Clause 8(1)(b) to place an additional requirement on the district judge to inform the person of the contents of the warrant at the initial hearing. At this stage, we are talking only about the arrest, prior to being brought before a district judge for the first of two times. We are not for a second talking about arrest with a view to the person being put in a van and removed from the country. The provision would merely bring the situation under control so that the person can be brought before a district judge to answer the request.
  On the issue of why we are following domestic legislation, we are doing so for a good and practical reason. The police deal with thousands of domestic arrests in a year and common sense says that it is sensible that the procedure in terms of arrest warrants in this respect should follow domestic procedure because it is more likely that there will be consistent and good practice compliant with a code of practice in those cases. The concerns that are being advanced—I understand their nature and the reasons for them—can be responded to by the fact that the person has a right to legal advice and that they will be brought before a district judge who has the duty to further make clear what they are being held for and against which an extradition is being requested. For those reasons, we believe that the Bill as currently drafted is appropriate and that it therefore adequately answers the concerns that have been raised.
  5.15 p.m.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: Before the noble Lord concludes, will he clarify something that I have only just noticed'? Clause 3(5) states:
  "The warrant may be executed even if neither the warrant nor a copy of it is in the possession of the person executing it at the time of the arrest".
  GC 314
  According to the amendments that we discussed earlier, the person being arrested must be given a copy of the warrant and, under our amendment, an explanation. How will that be possible if the arresting officer does not have to have the warrant with him at the time?
  Lord Filkin: The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, referred to that when he moved the amendment. He signalled—I appreciate that he did so—that the Opposition recognise that there were circumstances in which the urgency of the situation required that the person actually was seized because the warrant was not physically in the hand of the relevant officer. Common sense tells us that that will be the case. Without returning to earlier discussions, I have indicated previously the nature of people on whom extradition requests are normally made and I indicated the nature of the most serious offences. They frequently involve murder, terrorism, drug dealing and so on. There is often urgency in those situations to get the person into security.
  All of the warrants will also be on the police national computer. If a person is stopped for a traffic offence, the arresting officer will not have the document in his possession but it can be obtained, for example, when they are at the police station. The immediate arrests can take place but the person then has to be shown the warrant if they request it as soon as possible. The noble Baroness rightly said that that should be their right. Those are our reasons.
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Listening to the case made in favour of the amendments, I wondered what possible grounds the Minister would be advised to advance for resisting them. Having listened carefully to what he said, it seems that they boil down to one word: tidiness. We want to keep the procedure the same as it is for domestic warrants. The question that must be asked is: why should it be the same? What is the significant merit of tidiness in this regard?
  Is there not—I hope that the Minister will be so good as to deal with this point—a substantial difference in real life between a warrant that is issued domestically in regard to circumstances that may well be within the recollection of the arrested person and a warrant that is issued in a Part 1 country, and which was hundreds if not thousands of miles away, in respect of matters that may have arisen a very long time ago? The case is really made in real life simply for the reason of his having to be shown the warrant as soon as is practicable; if it is, it will not be in the possession of the arresting officer at the time. Tidiness and consistency are not enough, I respectfully suggest. There is a significant difference in practice in this regard and in terms of real life. It might be wise for the Minister to reflect on the matter a little further.
  Viscount Bledisloe: I fully accept that the person cannot always be shown the warrant at the time of his arrest. A nationwide search may have gone out for the person and the warrant may be held in London but the person may be arrested in Carlisle. Clearly, not every constable in the country can carry a copy of the

  GC 315
  warrant at the time. However, I suggest—this is somewhat in line with the proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew—that the Minister is asking too much in terms of tidiness and perhaps also putting too much on the word "warrant". This document is the entire statement of the case that is made by the foreign country as to why the man should be extradited. It is not merely an authority to arrest the man; it is also a statement of the offence and the information relied on for it. Unless and until he is not just shown but given a copy of the warrant, he is not in a position to do anything about his arrest at all. I cannot see what the difficulty is. It may well have to be as soon as practicable because, in my example, one may have to get a copy to Carlisle and so on. Why the person should not be shown the warrant as soon as possible, what he is being charged with and what he will be extradited for is extraordinary. The Minister did not answer my question, which is: if I am charged in a police station, surely I have an absolute right to be given a copy of that charge so that I can take advice on it? As well as being a warrant, that is surely equivalent to the charge, indictment or whatever it may be.
  Lord Filkin: I shall respond first to the question of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. In practice, it is not the case—noble Lords may find this surprising—that under domestic warrants for arrest there is not an absolute right to a copy of the warrant. I pressed officials fairly significantly on that point because one expected that that would be the case. However, I am told that it is not the case in law, and that in practice if someone asks for a copy, they are usually given one. That is a statement of fact.
  Viscount Bledisloe: I said that that surely means that one could be given a copy of the indictment with which the person is charged after he has been arrested. We are concerned with an indictment that a foreign country brought against him.
  Lord Filkin: I am informed that he is always given a copy of the charge.
  Viscount Bledisloe: Yes.
  Lord Filkin: On that point, the noble Viscount is quite right and there should be no concern. I am glad to give that assurance.
  I turn to the point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, about tidiness. In principle, one is always suspicious about whether tidiness is a sufficient reason because tidiness in itself does not necessarily convince one. I do not feel uncomfortable about arguing the case about consistency with domestic procedure because, by having the arrangement four square with domestic procedure, one reduces the risks of procedural mistakes. The last thing that one wants to happen is that someone, at probably one of the most crucial stages, manages to evade arrest for nothing more than a procedural mistake.
  Clearly, the thrust of the discussion is whether that places the person in danger of having their liberty infringed as a consequence. That would be the case if
  GC 316
  the arrangement were effectively a removal action; in other words, the person was being arrested to be put into a vehicle and taken off to Dover, Heathrow or wherever. In fact, all that is happening is that the person is being taken into a position of security so that they cannot escape the process of law. They are then taken before a domestic judge to start the procedure of establishing whether they meet the tests for being bailed or not bailed and so on, and then be brought before the district judge on the second occasion for the substantive hearing. For that reason, I do not believe that consistency with domestic law is just a bureaucratic request. It makes it more likely that the police will understand the procedure and get it right, and someone will not escape as a consequence of people inadvertently not being consistent in their procedures or meticulous about getting the right procedure. If the consequence is that someone who should be brought to face at least a request for extradition escapes doing that, that would be highly regrettable.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Every time, in almost every argument, the Minister says that the consequence of not doing this is that some terrible terrorist or murderer will not be brought to justice. Each time he uses that argument, he should invert it and say, "What is the risk that an innocent person will be falsely accused?". He should do that each time.
  Lord Filkin: I will not always do so because that would be wearisome to the Committee. I made the point involving terrorists and murderers because the current pressure of extradition bears at this end of the pitch for all sorts of practical reasons. We are talking about serious crime and international crime in the vast majority of cases. Having said that, I thought that in the last point I made I also signalled that I was alive to the civil liberties issue about the risk of exposure of the person through their being—how shall I put it?— wrongly arrested by the police. What, for example, would be the consequences if a venial offence were involved and as a result of a procedural mistake by the arresting officer, they had been arrested when they should not have been? The consequences of that are set out pretty clearly in the legislation. They would have a pretty fast right of redress and escape. One is always balancing the issue of potential seriousness about not addressing international crime against the risks to an individual of an error. It appears to me that the error is relatively minor in these circumstances.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: But surely the pattern of extradition in the past is not necessarily the pattern of extradition in the future. The characteristic of the Bill is that extradition will now be possible for offences that carry sentences of as low as one year's imprisonment.
  Viscount Bledisloe: The point that the Minister made in response to the question of the noble Lord. Lord Lamont, could perfectly easily be dealt with merely by saying that failure automatically to give a copy does not entitle him to automatic discharge. I appreciate that for a terrorist to go free because the policeman did

  GC 317
  not hand over a copy as quickly as possible involves a relief for a fault that is wholly disproportionate to that fault. The problem in that regard is not the absolute right to have it but that the remedy is automatic discharge.
  Another problem is that if one does not get a copy until one gets to the judge, the judge's job is to decide whether the person brought before him is the person in respect of whom the warrant was issued. If the man has not seen what is in the warrant, how on earth can he have there witnesses about who he is and so on to demonstrate that he is not the person described in the warrant? If he has not seen it before he gets to the judge, he is deprived of that right.
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Would it save time before the Minister responds if I came back briefly on his very helpful reply? It appeared that it was scraping the bottom of the barrel and does not stand up to examination in terms of what happens in real life. Let us suppose that the procedure has not inadvertently been followed by the police. The man or woman would then go in front of the district judge, someone takes the point and he is discharged. What would happen? He would immediately be re-arrested. There would be no cordon sanitaire that must be observed by which he must be given 24 hours' start. That appeared to happen in Ireland sometimes in this regard. If he were immediately re-arrested, the procedure would be correctly followed because the point would have been made and everyone would know where the mistake happened. This really does deserve to he thought about again.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I have been listening to the debate and confess that I have not yet been convinced by the Minister that the European arrest warrant should not be different from a warrant in domestic circumstances. This is different. It will not be a domestic arrest warrant; it will be a European arrest warrant. It will be exercised over a much wider area. I cannot understand why it cannot be conceded on this particular point that a person does not have to request a copy of the warrant to be shown it.
  I would have thought, under the circumstances of the Bill, and given the desire of the Government to make it acceptable, that this is an amendment they would be glad to accept. It would allay people's fears as to what could happen. To relate it to domestic arrangements is patently absurd. The whole thing is completely different from what we have been used to. We have never had a European arrest warrant. This is something new. Why do we have to remain entirely with the domestic situation? This is a new provision which affects a much wider area than the United Kingdom. Why then, in this particular piece of legislation do we not insert something that, so far as I can see, every Member of this Grand Committee is in favour of, except the Ministers and those who sit behind them?
  GC 318
  I wish that the Minister would listen to my noble friend Lord Wedderburn and say when he sees the word "resist", which often appears in Ministers' briefs. I know because I have been a Whip on a number of committees in the House of Commons and they always put "resist" at the top. I want the Minister to resist the resist. It seems to me that if he does that he would please the Committee and we would get on very much faster.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Very briefly, if the Minister is to carry out his instructions to resist and is to use the argument of tidiness and that what happens should be that with which the constable is familiar, has he checked that the procedure is exactly the same for a Scottish constable? If he has not, could he do so, because the argument will not stand up if it is not so.
  Lord Filkin: I clearly have considerable dissent from the Committee on this issue. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, it has not been my practice to blindly and obdurately dig in irrespectively. I believe that the Committee process serves a purpose, which is sometimes to identify issues which we have not always thought of. I say that genuinely. That has been my approach to legislation.
  I shall go through some of the points raised and then conclude. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said that in future we will be extraditing for offences which attract a penalty of one year's imprisonment. That has been the case since 1870. All I can say is what is the nature of the bulk of extradition cases currently. The noble Lord is right; that may change in future with a simpler system but our expectation would be that it will still tend to focus on the most serious offences. Even with a more simplified procedure it is not simple to find someone abroad, trace them and to go through the process. But it will not serve a purpose if I debate that point in detail.
  If the person is wrongly arrested, they must be brought before the court as soon as is practicable, where the error will be notified and the person discharged. The point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, is that if no copy is then available they will not automatically be released. I am not certain that I have correctly seized that point. I shall have to double check that when I reflect on reading Hansard.
  The fundamental point is that we are referring at this stage to the warrant for the arrest when the real issue is whether the person will get a copy of what they are charged with. That is the fundamental issue. We have already signalled, in what I said earlier, that they will be given a copy of what they are charged with.
  Viscount Bledisloe: With respect, that is precisely what this warrant is. Clause 2(2)(a) states that the warrant,
  "contains … the statement … and the information".
  The warrant is the whole document. That is why I dealt with what the noble Lord said about domestic authorities in relation to an arrest and this document, which is the entire case against the person. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that what is important is

  GC 319
  that one knows what one is being charged with and what the information that is relied on is. That is what is in the warrant; it says so in Clause 2(2)(a).
  Lord Filkin: I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, for that.
  I was going to conclude by saying that I am no longer going to try to make water flow uphill this afternoon on this issue. I will go away and look at the arguments. I will question whether the argument in terms of reduction of risk by having a standard procedure outweighs the arguments put to me by Members of the Committee from a number of quarters. I do so with my usual caution: that is not to imply that we are signalling that we will change but it does signal that we will give further serious consideration to the matter, and in the awareness of what noble Lords will seek to encourage us to do on Report. I conclude with that commitment.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: We have had a most interesting debate, and I am grateful to the Minister for those concluding comments. I am also grateful to noble Lords who contributed.
  I do not wish to re-till the ground except to make two points. First, I am not a lawyer and have never been arrested, so I speak without any experience. I find it staggering, in relation to the Minister's comments on our trying to follow domestic legislation, that I can leave a police station on bail without a copy of the charge. Can I leave a police station without a piece of paper telling me what I have been charged with? Perhaps I can; I do not know.
  Secondly—this may also be the point of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe—we have become confused in the legislation between the warrant and the charge or indictment. The Council framework decision, which has the warrant at the back of it, is what I regard as a charge sheet and indictment as well. That may be the source of some of our difficulties. Instead of having a one-liner, as it were, we have a warrant that is combined, as the noble Viscount said, with a charge or indictment. Somehow, we must separate those so that the person knows what he has been charged with in advance of getting to Clause 8(1)(b)—the domestic judge—to which the Minister rightly referred. I am afraid, however, that his fox was subsequently shot by a Member of the Committee. I take the point of my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that this is a different system. Neatness cannot carry the day, particularly when one is dealing with non-UK nationals' who may not be familiar with the language or the practices and will be in a very different situation.
  We look forward to hearing the Minister's reflections and considerations. I am particularly interested to hear whether I can leave a police station without any piece of paper giving information about what I have been charged with. I believe that the Minister's team said that that was the case. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbottsmoved Amendment No. 35:
  Page 3, line 31, after "him" insert "in a language he understands"
  The noble Lord said: We are still on the vexed issue of Clause 4(2). The amendment relates to language. It brings us back in part, but not centrally, to Amendments Nos. 13 and 155, which we discussed at a previous sitting. This amendment is grouped with other amendments that run through the Bill. Amendment No. 35 deals with Part 1, Amendment No. 156 deals with Part 2 and relates to arrest, Amendment No. 171 deals with the provisions of arrest under Part 2, Amendment No. 209 deals with competing extraditions and Amendment No. 213 deals with information that has to be provided to the Secretary of State if he decides to order an extradition in Clause 99.
  Lord Goodhart: By the Secretary of State.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I beg the Committee's pardon. Amendment No. 213 deals with information that has to be provided by the Secretary of State. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has tabled some amendments that head down the same kind of track, and indeed follow on from some of what he discussed on the previous group.
  The group of amendments addresses an issue that is quite straightforward. Any person faced with an arrest warrant—should I now say charge sheet?—must have it translated into a language that he or she understands. We debated earlier the merits of ordinary language. The point here, although of the same ilk, is even more fundamental. Extradition invariably involves language and communication barriers. I shall refer in a moment to the case of Teresa Daniels, which is currently in the papers; Members of the Committee will have heard of it in relation to the communication harrier. Every person must be able to understand the crime for which they are being charged and the subsequent proceedings at the extradition hearing and eventual court case that results in them going back to the issuing country.
  The right is already enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 5.2 reads:
  "Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him".
  Article 6.3 goes on:
  "Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights … to be informed promptly in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and … to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court".
  It is stated in note 1 of the annex to the framework decision that the,
  "warrant must be written in, or translated into, one of the official languages of the executing Member State, when that state is known, or any other language accepted by that State".

  GC 321
  The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, makes use of that fact. However, we believe that there is still merit in insisting in the Bill that the warrant be shown to a person in a language that he understands. His first language might be the language of neither the issuing nor the executing state, but a different one altogether.
  There has been a briefing from Fair Trials Abroad that I am sure many Members of the Committee will have seen, which highlights the divergence of standards in legal translation and interpretation in a significant number of countries throughout Europe and the resulting miscarriages of justice. A foreigner is invariably at a disadvantage if he is arrested, charged and prosecuted in a country other than his own. Communication problems due to language barriers in many cases cause considerable discrimination.
  It is worth stating very briefly the case of Teresa Daniels, mentioned by Fair Trials Abroad, which is a long-running saga and the sort of case that we have to make sure cannot happen in future. She was arrested in June 1997 at the airport in Gran Canaria, travelling with a companion who had drugs. He said from the beginning that she knew nothing about the drugs. Nine months later, having been asked at trial a total of five questions—she had no interpreter present and could not understand the proceedings—she was sentenced to 10 years but was allowed to go free. Eighteen months after that, two-and-a-half years after the first case, there was an appeal against her sentence, which was dismissed. She returned to the United Kingdom and remained here until three weeks ago, when, on 2nd June—six years after the original case—she was arrested by United Kingdom police officers and has to appear at Bow Street Magistrates' Court very shortly.
  That has now taken six years. She is not clear what she has done. She did not understand what she was charged with in the first place. She was not able to speak the language. We need to ensure that that sort of case cannot happen under the extradition proceedings and the revision thereof, which we are considering now. I beg to move.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Goodhart: I offer somewhat equivocal support. I support some of the amendments in this group but not all. I can see grounds for why the warrant should not be required to be translated out of English—we were originally told that the warrant will be in English as the appropriate official language. There are certain problems that could arise. First, one may not know what languages a particular person understands. They are not necessarily the language of the country which seeks the extradition. There is also the problem that it is even more important that the warrant should be comprehensible to the detainee's legal adviser than that it should be comprehensible to the person concerned. That means that I cannot support Amendments Nos. 35, 156 and 171.
  However, I very much support Amendments Nos. 209 and 213, which apply in entirely different situations. In the case of Amendment No. 209 the
  GC 322
  information is being provided by the judge and in Amendment No. 213 by the Secretary of State. In both those cases the information should be transmitted in a translated form. Clearly, the judge cannot be called upon as an individual to provide information in a language that he or she does not know. It should be transmitted through an interpreter who is able to interpret it into the appropriate language.
  In the case of a Secretary of State, where clearly the information will be provided in writing, again it should be in writing in a language which the recipient of the information will understand. Therefore, I support the last two amendments.
  Viscount Bledisloe: I confess that, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, it seems to me that the amendment is misconceived. Obviously translation and interpreting facilities must be available as soon as possible. But to require that the warrant is shown to a person on his arrest in a language he understands seems to me to be wholly wrong.
  First, it is most important that he gets the same document that the judge will be working from. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, his adviser has to work from that. Secondly, no one may know at the time what language he does understand. Thirdly, if the man is ingenious he may decline to tell you what language he understands. If the document is not provided to him within a language he understands within the time allowed, the provision would not have been complied with. After the time has elapsed he might reveal the language he does understand and say, "The document was not in that language and therefore I must be discharged". Clearly, facilities for translation are needed. But, like every other process in England, the document should be served in English. We do not translate our writs—they are no longer called writs—into foreign languages to serve on defendants who do not understand English. Legal proceedings in England are conducted in English and the document must he served in English.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I rise to support the spirit of Amendment No. 35 and to explain a small matter. An amendment tabled in my name and that of my noble friend regarding translation was withdrawn. Amendment No. 39, which we discussed in a previous group, also had a reference to translation removed. Perhaps I may explain that and aver to something to which the Minister may refer in his reply. Members of the Committee may remember that we discussed translation in a previous debate. It was a rather odd discussion in which the relevance of the framework decision annex about language was mentioned. The annex reads:
  "This warrant must be written in, or translated into, one of the official languages of the executing Member State, when that State is known, or any other language accepted by that State".
  A previous debate raised the question of whether or not that should be available in Welsh. It was pointed out by the Minister—at any rate for this purpose, although I think he said he risked a minor explosion in doing so—that Welsh is not an official language for this purpose. My memory is that we left it at that.

  GC 323
  The framework decision, which I assume we want to implement, states that the warrant must be written in or translated into one of the official languages of the executing member states. So far, that is English. I appreciate the comments of the noble Viscount, that normally such things are done in English. But this is a transnational matter. It is no good being tremendously patriotic about this matter when it is European because it has transnational dimensions. We note that it must be written either in English or any other language accepted by the executing member state. Therefore" it is perfectly possible for us to accept a language which we describe as one which will be intelligible to the person arrested. I appreciate the other points that were made. It may be that you cannot know what he will understand. It may be that he denies understanding anything and that he understands only Esperanto. But the spirit of Amendment No. 35, albeit that its language is perhaps a little too brutal, is that you should do your best to have the person arrested understand what it is he is being arrested for.
  This is ground we have already covered. It was the point which commanded, as I apprehend it, unanimity among the Members of the Grand Committee; namely, that the person arrested should understand as far as is humanly possible what it is he is being arrested for, and that he should not have to wait to be hauled before a judge before he understands that very simple point. It is not a question of being carted off in a van tomorrow—no one has said that. What we have said is that the person arrested should understand what he is being arrested for.
  Of course, wily criminals can be even cleverer than Members of the Grand Committee and can think of all sorts of reasons why they say they do not understand a measure, but that should not take away the responsibility of the police, whose convenience, I must say with great respect, is being consulted as usual by the Home Office with such trepidation. I hope that the Minister thinks of this when he goes to sleep reading the Bill again tonight. As he dozes off, I with respect suggest to him that he for a moment suspends disbelief and thinks that perhaps human liberties and human rights are being put aside in the balance that he has drawn between police convenience—which he calls consistency—and the rights of a person arrested.
  The spirit of Amendment No. 35—I urge the Minister to address that spirit as well as the actual words—is that we try our best to explain to the person arrested what it is he is arrested for. As we all know, there will be cases—surely it is common ground that there will he such cases—where, if English is the only obligation in this regard, we know very well that the person arrested will not understand what he is being told. Will the Minister take the matter away and come back to us with a measure in the spirit of Amendment No. 35 to inform the person arrested what it is he is arrested for—at least where you know the languages that he understands—in the language that one well knows is the only one that he understands?
  Lord Filkin: I will not promise that I always went to sleep reading the Bill. But this is a proper challenge to
  GC 324
  seek to balance the interests of justice in bringing to trial people charged with serious crimes and the risks of an infringement of civil liberties as a consequence of that process. That is why I support the spirit of what is being attempted but riot the mechanism. Justice cannot clearly be done if the person brought before justice does not understand what is being done to him or her. Therefore, we are debating how to achieve that objective.
  We do not believe, however, that the amendments as drafted, requiring a police officer to translate the content of the warrant into a language that the person understands, are the right way forward. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, spoke perhaps more clearly and succinctly on that than I might. I have already explained that the central thrust of how we will operate extradition in this part of the Bill will be to require that the requesting state translate all documentation into English. That is for a good reason: we understand English, as do our lawyers and procedural processors. To not have it in that way seems to be starting off the process wrongly. That is why we are categorical about that.
  But it is imperative that the arrested person understands what is happening to him or her, why he or she has been arrested and what the charges are. If the police were required to fulfil that linguistic task, the problem is that it would be asking quite a lot of them to have the relevant fluency and languages, and to get it right. In practice, therefore, a highly multilingual policeman is not required, but the arrested person must have access to an interpreter. That is as set out in the Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985.
  The code of practice under the Bill will require, under Part 4, to provide for that explicitly—in other words, that a person will and must have access to an interpreter—as well as including a requirement for the police to ensure as far as possible at the time of arrest that the person understands that he or she is being arrested and why. If it were done as the amendment currently states, there would be all sorts of problems apart from finding a police officer with the relevant linguistic skills. There would be the danger of the policeman translating the warrant wrongly and messing up the process before it even started.
  I shall re-emphasise the procedures that we are trying to put in place to ensure that the person understands that he or she is being arrested and why. Again, we have tried to follow as closely as possible the procedures set out in the Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985, which requires that. if necessary, the person have access to an interpreter. Although the Committee is right that there will probably be more cases where a person does not understand English in these matters, that already happens in our domestic legislation. Our domestic law, therefore, already provides for provision of an interpreter service, as it should do.
  The code states that the need for an interpreter will be fully assessed by the custody officer on arrival at the police station, and, if necessary, the process of arrest can be repeated to ensure that the person understands that he or she has been arrested and why.

  GC 325
  Furthermore, Annex A to the code includes a checklist for use by custody officers requiring them to assess whether the person understands English and to record on the custody record whether or not the person requires an interpreter. The code also makes it explicit that custody officers should have regard to current domestic procedures in the assessment of an engagement of interpreters set out in Code C 3.5 and 3.12 under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Interpreters are engaged as soon as practicable, depending upon their availability and location. Where the language of the arrested person has been identified, a notice of rights is printed out and given to the person in a language they understand before a full explanation can be given in the presence of an interpreter.
  Finally, I turn to Amendments Nos. 209 and 213 which also seek to insert the concept of language that the person who is subject to extradition understands. Clause 91 requires the district judge in a Part 2 case which he sends to a Secretary of State to inform the person in ordinary language that he has a (deferred) right of appeal to the High Court. Clause 99 requires the Secretary of State, if he orders a person's extradition in a Part 2 case, to tell the person and to inform him of his right of appeal—again, in ordinary language. Clearly, "in ordinary language" means language that the person can understand. Therefore, if one does not expect a district judge to be multi-lingual, it implies that that means that the person has to understand it, if necessary, through the provision of an interpreter facility.
  I totally support the thrust and purpose behind the amendments but suggest that the way in which we intend to implement it, building on our current domestic practice where suspects do not understand English and reinforced by the code of practice, should address the matter adequately.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the Minister for that. As the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, said, we are talking here about "spirit" and what we are trying to achieve. These are probing amendments. I am again not entirely convinced when the Minister says that this is in line with our domestic arrangements because, as we have discussed several times today—I shall not labour the point—this is a different type of arrangement. This is a transnational arrangement which involves a European arrest warrant.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, took me to task for the way that some old lags or experienced hands would be able to turn any amendment of this type to their advantage. I accept those strictures, but there is another side of the coin. The position of Teresa Daniels is a very good example of this. It is now six years since the alleged offence is supposed to have taken place and she is due to go to Bow Street on Friday. She has had no clear understanding of what she has been charged with. Indeed, it now transpires that, having received some court documents, her
  GC 326
  conviction was based on entries in her personal diary which was written in English and translated into Spanish. The translation has been shown to be largely inaccurate.
  That is the type of issue that will come back to cause us a great deal of trouble. Of course, I accept the point that there may be people who will use the fact that their language is not available or refuse to make clear what their language is—although I suspect that could be dealt with in legislation—or choose an obscure language. But nevertheless the dangers of mistranslation are very great indeed. The person able to see most clearly is the person arrested for the alleged offence, but who needs to see this in terms of the language that they understand.
  This is an issue to which we shall need to come back. We feel that the spirit needs a fresh look. I hope that the Minister may be able to help us before we get to further stages of this Bill. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 36 to 39 not moved.]
  Baroness Carnegy of Lourmoved Amendment No. 40:
  Page 3, line 32, leave out "as soon as practicable" and insert "not later than the first day after he is taken into custody"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 40, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 42, 48, 160, 161, 174 and 175. I have tabled these amendments following discussion with the Law Society of Scotland. The amendments relate not just to the extradition process in Scotland but to the whole of the United Kingdom, although they come from a Scots' viewpoint.
  The Law Society of Scotland considers—I agree—that in these proposed new extradition proceedings, the maximum time that can elapse between a person's arrest and his or her initial appearance in court should be clearly stated in the Bill. As drafted, that is not so. In Clause 4(3), a person arrested because of a Part 1 warrant must,
  "be brought as soon as practicable before the appropriate judge".
  The same applies in identical terms to arrest under a Part 2 warrant at Clause 71(3) and arrest under a Part 2 provisional warrant at Clause 73(3). Following arrest under all these types of warrant, the Bill states that the person must be brought to court "as soon as practicable".
  It was pointed out with some force at Second Reading in Your Lordships' House that to be arrested with a view to extradition is a traumatic experience for anyone. Clearly, a delay at the outset, for whatever number of days the authorities happen to decide is practicable, could be quite unnecessarily inhumane. The Law Society of Scotland suggests that there seems to be no reason why a person should not come to court the day after arrest—allowing, of course, for weekends and public holidays on which the court might not be available. In fact, that is normal practice after most arrests in Scotland and it works perfectly well.
  The Law Society also suggests that the same rule could apply following arrest under a Part 1 provisional warrant. In that case, Clause 6(3) states that the maximum delay would be 48 hours. That is on the face of the Bill. The effect of this group of amendments is that following arrest under all four types of warrant—a Part 1 warrant and provisional warrant and a Part 2 warrant and provisional warrant—a person would have to be brought before a judge the next day. The wording used in the amendments is simply for convenience—taken from the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
  It may he that the Government will reply that the next-day rule is simply not practicable. They may prefer a maximum delay of two or three days or even longer. My point, and the Law Society of Scotland's point, is that the maximum delay should be on the face of the Bill. The arrested person should not languish in custody for however many days those concerned at the time consider practical.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. If the words, "unless the judge extends the time" were inserted, would that satisfy the noble Baroness?
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I still do not understand why a maximum time should not be on the face of the Bill. It seems that there is no reason at all. Of course it should be "as soon as practicable", but the maximum time should he there. That is the purpose of the amendment. I hope that the Committee will see the point of this. Above all, I hope that the Minister will because it is an extremely important point. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I have added my name to this group of amendments which obviously come from the Law Society of Scotland. My noble friend—to address her incorrectly—has well explained the point of view of the Law Society. It is important that this type of United Kingdom legislation should mesh into Scottish legislation and Scottish practice. There is no reason why, in this case, there should not be an extra subsection described as "in Scotland" if the Committee considers that it wants a different arrangement for England.
  I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that we are talking about the time that the person would spend in the police station. It is true that in Scotland the person will have to appear before the sheriff. In our amendment, we have proposed how soon a person should appear before the sheriff. Indeed, the sheriff or a judge in England can extend that, but that is another matter.
  My time as a prison social worker and probation supervisor reminds me that there was nothing that the boys disliked more—but presumably the police on occasion enjoyed—than being picked up on a Friday afternoon. That meant that they enjoyed—or endured—the whole weekend in the police station before appearing in the sheriff court on Monday morning. I suspect that it was quite a useful informal
  GC 328
  punishment. Therefore, it is important that we reduce the amount of time that these people spend in the police station by stating it on the face of the Bill.
  Viscount Bledisloe: Has the noble Baroness fully taken into account the fact that the appropriate judge, under Clause 66, is a very specific judge—for example, in Scotland, it is to be the sheriff of Lothian and Borders? It is not any old judge who can he found in the locality. I suspect that in the deepest of winters in Scotland there may well be portions of the Kingdom in which it would be rather difficult to take the arrested person to the specific judge within 24 hours. It is not the normal case where the arrested person could be hauled in front of any old magistrate: he or she has to be taken to the very specific judge laid down by Clause 66. Therefore, if one is arrested in one part of the Kingdom and has to be taken to the other end of it, it may not be as practical as the noble Baroness suggests.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: It may not be practicable that it should be the day after arrest. Nevertheless, there is no reason why there should be any great delay. After all, there is no case to prepare because no prima facie evidence has to be provided and therefore no great preparation has to take place. I should think that the only bar to getting the arrested person before the court within a day, or very shortly after that, is that there may be some congestion in the courts. If that is so, that should be explained and the arrested person ought to be housed in conditions other than in a police station. The Minister ought to take into account what has been said because this is a fairly simple warrant to exercise. As I have said, there is no prima facie evidence, so there is no case to prepare. I hope that the Minister will give the amendment his consideration.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: In supporting this amendment, could I also ask the Minister to explain why we have the sheriff of Lothian and Borders? What is the significance of that particular sheriff? The Minister may be aware that some of us live a wee bitty further north and a fair number of people live a long way further north than that. Could he explain why Lothian and Borders have been singled out for this privilege?
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Filkin: The amendments deal with the requirement to bring an arrested person before a judge. The Bill is currently drafted with the words "as soon as practicable" or, in the case of a provisional arrest under Part 1 in a circumstance in which not all the documentation is in place, within 48 hours.

  GC 329
  The intention behind both forms of drafting is similar in that all of us want to see that persons arrested in the UK for extradition are brought before a British judge quickly. I also note that the noble Baroness and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, acknowledge that bringing a person before a judge on the day after arrest is not always possible, as the second limb of their amendment makes express provision for weekends or court holidays.
  However, on this occasion the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, is absolutely right. The issue is not so tightly defined in the legislation that one frustrates the ability to achieve justice, while not leaving it so without remedy that a dilatory public body leaves it open for an abuse of a person's right to be brought before a court.
  The Government's position is to allow for flexibility if there are reasonable problems in bringing someone to court. I think that everyone would recognise that a balance needs to be struck between allowing for the police and the court to have a reasonable amount of time to fix up a hearing and the rights to personal freedom of the arrested person. The common ground, therefore, is on that principle. I shall explain how we think that we have met that double challenge by the way in which we are intending to proceed.
  Under Section 46 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, arrested persons must be,
  "brought before such a court as soon as is practicable".
  That was replicated in our drafting of the Bill. That the phrase is in PACE asks the question that if that period is suitable for persons arrested on domestic charges, why is it not suitable for those arrested for extradition? That seems to us to be a workable legislative tool that as far as we are aware has been working without problems. Therefore. we cannot see why there should be a problem with it in this context.
  I should also ask if the amendments foresee problems of getting the person a hearing at weekends and court holidays. What about the situation where a court is understaffed due to sick leave—that should not happen but can happen—and cannot get through its case list? What about, as was touched on, an arrest in a remote part of the country where the police cannot get the person before a judge within a day due to bad weather? What about a court which has a large backlog and simply cannot list the case that quickly? Those should be exceptional circumstances but one would not want a person to be able to escape just because they applied even in a limited number of cases.
  We fully expect that "as soon as practicable" will mean in the vast majority of cases the first sitting of the appropriate judge after the person has been arrested. That is what we expect will happen and what should happen in the vast majority of cases. Because it will not always happen, and because there is a concern about whether public bodies might be dilatory without good reason, there is a powerful sanction in the Bill for the district judge to decide that if the person was not brought before him as soon as is practicable, he can order discharge. That is a pretty fierce sanction on public authorities. If they muck about, to speak
  GC 330
  colloquially, they could lose their suspect. Therefore, there is a difficulty in specifying that so precisely that one does not allow for the circumstances. The sanction that we have given to the district judge seemed to us to be rightly powerful.
  As to why the sheriff is from Lothian and Borders when there are, thank heaven, large parts of Scotland much further north than that, the answer is that the sheriff from Lothian and Borders currently handles all extradition cases in Scotland and has the necessary expertise. That is the Scottish practice. As regards the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, he is right; there is no reason why there should generally be a great delay. As I have indicated, in most cases we would expect that a person would come before the court quickly. However, we are talking about getting the person to the court for the initial hearing rather than the main hearing at which the bars to extradition are considered at the second stage.
  For those reasons, I hope that we share the objective of persons being brought before the judge very early, but the Bill allows flexibility and the appropriate protections which need to go with it.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Before the noble Baroness replies, as regards inclement weather and remoteness, in those circumstances might it not be reasonable for the person to appear at the local sheriff court? I have in mind the idea of someone who has been arrested in, perhaps, Lewes and in the event of inclement weather appears at the sheriff court in Stornoway before being flown to Edinburgh. Who would pay for the flights for both the person liable to extradition and the policeman who must accompany him or her?
  Lord Filkin: I speak with some caution about Scottish matters knowing who I have against me on these issues. All I would say is that this is how Scottish authorities have chosen to handle their extradition cases. I am respectful of their argumentation, which is that it is desirable to have a sheriff who is expert in these matters hearing all cases. In my view, that outweighs the argument that if that led to a delay of a day or two it is better than the alternative of having someone inexperienced. If that is the way they want to conduct their affairs, I am respectful of that.
  As regards the second point raised about who would pay for the flights, the respective public bodies have to pay for the transport costs of bringing people into judicial processes. That is no different from domestic cases.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Perhaps the Minister misunderstood me. I merely mentioned the idea of appearing before the local sheriff in order to fulfil the requirement of having to appear before a sheriff who could then remand the person to Edinburgh in the event of inclement weather, rather than that just being part of the warrant procedure.
  Viscount Bledisloe: Before the noble Baroness decides what to do with her amendment—I suppose that she does not have much choice in this Committee—I must say that the more I listen to the Minister, the more it occurs to me that Clause 4(4) is really the root of many of his problems. There we have a situation where, if formalities are not complied with, the person is automatically discharged even though that has done him no harm at all.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, may be right, but it makes remarkably little difference because the person will go out through one door, be arrested and come back in through the other door immediately. That is not a very satisfactory situation and he might just get away. Would it not be better if subsection (4) was discretionary so that the judge decided whether the informality had really mattered and could say, "Well, I grant that you got the document 10 minutes late", or "I grant that it has taken 36 hours to get to you from Stornoway to Lothian, but it has not done you any harm and I am not going to let free someone charged with blowing up the twin towers merely because they spent 30 hours on the journey and not 24"?
  Would not the Minister's life be a great deal easier if subsection (4) was less stringent, or does that appear in the European document, so that it has to be in the Bill as well?
  Lord Filkin: I would welcome anything that made my life easier, but I am not certain that that would. It is right that one wants a discretionary power here for the reasons advanced by the noble Viscount. However, there is a discretionary power under Clause 4(3) in the sense that the judge has the power to make a judgment about whether he or she thinks that the respective authorities have brought the person before the judge as soon as is practicable. If, for example, they had done nothing about the person and had forgotten about them for a couple of days, the judge would have the power to decide that they had not brought the person as soon as practicable, which would trigger the discharge. If, on the other hand, they heard the argumentation that there had been deep snow in Argyle, if that seemed to fit with common sense knowledge no doubt they would not decide that discharge was justified.
  Viscount Bledisloe: Let us suppose that it is not as soon as practicable. Let us suppose that Constable Plod took some time off to have a rather large breakfast on the way down and missed the connection. It would seem a little extreme that that would lead to the automatic discharge of someone charged with an extremely serious offence. The judge can say that it was as soon as practicable, but once he is convinced that it is not, he then has no choice but to discharge. I suggest that in those circumstances, or when documentation had inadvertently not been given, it should be discretionary and not absolute.
  Lord Filkin: This is an occasion when we have sought to he tough and to give the clearest possible
  GC 332
  signals to Parliament that procedures have to be complied with and if not the police will lose their suspect. I shall reflect on this but I do not think we will be minded to change it because it is a powerful incentive on public authorities.
  As regards the 48 hours on provisional arrest, again we put in 48 hours because we recognised that there will be circumstances when, for example, France asks us urgently to see someone but if it cannot get the documentation to us within 48 hours that is bad luck; it has lost the person. It is for those reasons that we think it is right to be clear and strong. I shall reflect on this, but I do not think we shall be minded to change that.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I thank those who have spoken and, indeed, the Minister. Perhaps my amendments have misled one or two people by referring to a next-day appearance. When moving the amendments I explained that the wording was used for convenience and was a process that works in Scotland in other respects. I was making a point for a maximum time to be in the Bill.
  As to the problems of fixing a time and then, in Scotland, taking people to Lothian and Borders to appear before the sheriff, there seems no objection at all in Scotland to that one sheriff continuing to perform the function that he does at present on extradition. I understand that the legal system is quite happy with that and I was not questioning that.
  My noble friend—I think that he is my noble friend—Lord Mar and Kellie suggested that there might be a different arrangement in Scotland. That is not the suggestion. I do not think that people in Scotland want a different arrangement. There is a next-day rule in Scotland and the Law Society wanted to point out that that was the case. However, I do not think there is a lot of pressure for that necessarily being the length of time. I think that the Scots law system wants the same system and was just suggesting that it should be stipulated. That is the thinking in Scotland; that is, that the idea of what is practicable, which the Minister quoted, comes from England. I understand that that is not the way it is treated in Scotland. It is much more precise. That is the way that Scots lawyers think. I hope I speak correctly on that. I am alone at present and do not have any Scots legal advice.
  The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who is not in his place, suggested that not all that much information is needed, so it should be possible to stipulate a maximum time. That is a very good point, provided, of course, that it is possible to extend it in particular circumstances.
  There is an important point here. I hope that the Minister will consider what has been said and see whether he is sure that what I think is a south-of-the-border approach—that it is always all right just to say what is practicable—is in order. I do not think I would like to be incarcerated waiting for someone to decide what is practicable before they let me appear in court

  GC 333
  and decide whether or not I am to be extradited. Having said that, I shall read carefully what has been said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbottsmoved Amendment No. 41:
  Page 3, line 32, leave out "as soon as practicable" and insert "within 24 hours"
  The noble Lord said: I do not want to detain the Committee unnecessarily on this matter as it is a rerun of many of the arguments we have had in connection with amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Carnegy. I wish to raise just two points.
  My first point picks up the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. Under the Bill a person must be brought before the appropriate judge "as soon as practicable". We understand why the Government want flexibility on that matter. However, the measure seems to place an awful weight upon the judge, particularly in the light of the strictures in subsection (4) of Clause 4. That is to say, if the provisions of subsection (2) or (3) of that clause are not complied with, the judge must effectively let the person go. The interlocking nature of subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 4 seems to me to raise great difficulties.
  In seeking flexibility, I believe that the Government have made a rod for their own back. They have placed a huge weight on the appropriate judge who will be under very great pressure, in the extreme cases that the Minister likes to mention of terrorism and so on, never to rule that the phrase "as soon as practicable" was not complied with. I believe that stipulating a time limit would take a lot of the heat off the judge and, indeed, the authorities.
  My concern is emphasised by the fact that under Clause 6(3), which deals with provisional arrests, a time limit is stipulated. The Minister argues that we must have flexibility in one part of the Bill in this regard but in another part a time limit of 48 hours is stipulated. My Amendment No. 49 seeks to change that 48-hour time limit to 24 hours. It is a probing amendment.
  We believe that to have flexibility in one part of the Bill and a time limit of 48 hours in another will cause the Government unnecessary difficulty now and will cause the courts and the police unnecessary difficulty in the future. It would be better to have a hard line running through the Bill, whether that is a time limit of 24 hours or 48 hours or whatever rather than have the term "as soon as practicable". For all the reasons that my noble friend raised it is inordinately difficult for a judge or a police force to comply with such a term. The adoption of a hard line or a straight edge on the matter would be far preferable. I beg to move.
  Lord Filkin: We are talking about provisional arrest. It is probably self-evident that it is an important tool in the kit of police officers effecting arrest in extradition cases. By its very nature extradition implies travel and
  GC 334
  flight from justice. The use of provisional arrest is a vital part of the UK's ability to extradite fugitives and is especially useful in cases where the person's whereabouts may be known only for a few hours.
  Provisional arrest means that a person is arrested before the Part 1 warrant or Part 2 request has been received, and therefore I can understand that Parliament is rightly concerned that persons are not held in police custody for undue periods.
  For Part 1, we have specifically laid out exactly how long the police have to get the person in front of a judge and 48 hours for Part 1 does not seem an unreasonable period to the Government. That is in contrast to domestic proceedings where the person, once charged, is required only to be,
  "brought before such a court as soon as is practicable"
  under Section 46(2) of the Police and Criminal Act 1984.
  Therefore, under the Bill, if the person is not brought before the judge in 48 hours, he is discharged. I would say that that is a relatively swift process, allowing the requesting state to issue its warrant and have it brought before the judge while ensuring that no requested person is subject to an overly lengthy detention.
  The amendment to change this period to 24 hours, we believe, goes too far. It must be remembered that adequate regard must be given to a district judge's ability to hold hearings at such short notice. A two-day period in which to set that hearing seems about right; cutting that by half looks unworkable. We are talking about two variables here: the requesting state having put its documentation in place and there being an appropriate court ready for the police to bring that before. Both of those measures have to be in place for the warrant to be triggered.
  We would not want serious criminals to walk free purely because a court date could not be fixed quickly enough. That clearly is not in the interests of the victims of crime.
  Turning to Part 2, the time period differs because, in these cases, a domestic warrant under Clause 72 has been issued by a justice of the peace. That warrant is issued only if the magistrate believes that the request is for an extradition offence and that there is evidence that would justify the issue of a warrant for the arrest of the person.
  Therefore, we have a domestic warrant issued by a British magistrate and it seems reasonable therefore to apply provisions with a similarity to the existing domestic provisions.
  As I have said, the phrase,
  "as soon as is practicable",
  appears in PACE and it has been placed in the Extradition Bill also. We believe that that phrase will mean in practice, in the vast majority of cases, that the hearing will be no later than the first sitting after the

  GC 335
  provisional arrest. In the light of those comments, I hope that the noble Lord will feel minded to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am disappointed that the Minister cannot see the practical problems that might arise from having different timescales in different parts of the Bill. I recognise the force of the arguments that have been put with regard to a period of 24 hours and 48 hours, but I believe that an extraditee could spin the matter out by saying that the various measures in Clause 4 had not been complied with "as soon as practicable".
  The Minister referred to a safeguard if the various measures had not been complied with. However, as I say, the safeguard that a person must be discharged if various measures have not been complied with "as soon as practicable" could be manipulated by a cynical extraditee to spin out the matter. The measure will not confer the protection that the Minister thinks it will. We would prefer a firm time-scale in both parts of the Bill to which I referred which all authorities and all the people involved would be aware of. But we can come back to that. We have had—
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Before my noble friend sits down, I should like to ask the Minister a question. As I understand it, Amendment No. 49 refers to Clause 5 which deals with provisional arrest. I was absent from the Committee for 10 minutes to listen to a debate which largely concerned Scotland. I apologise for missing part of the debate in Grand Committee during that time although I heard my noble friend's opening speech. Will the Minister explain how exactly provisional arrest—which was not, as I recall, raised very much on Second Reading—will work? In what circumstances will a person be allowed to be arrested if there is a belief that a warrant from a Part 1 country will be issued? Why should someone be arrested on the basis that a warrant will be issued? On what basis will people believe that a warrant will be issued?
  Lord Filkin: I believe that I spoke to that matter briefly but let me try to answer the point by way of an example. I do not wish to re-open the debate about which of the cases that we are discussing are serious or trivial; we all agree that some people who are fugitives from justice are serious criminals. Take, for example, who it is believed has committed a major bank robbery in France, whatever his or her nationality. He flees to Britain. The French police believe that they know where he is. They ask the British authorities, through the systems set out in Part 1, to arrest that person. Due to the timescale involved and the urgency of the matter they do not have all the documentation. Provisional arrest allows that person to be seized and held pending the provision of the documentation. If the documentation is not provided within 48 hours, the whole process collapses. But not to have such provisional arrest would significantly tilt the position
  GC 336
  in favour of fugitives of justice involved in serious crime. I did not speak at that length but that was the thrust of the explanation of provisional arrest.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I want to speak about this but my noble friend the Minister has been lured—
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: When we discuss Amendment No. 44 we shall discuss removing the words "or will be". I believe that that would be the appropriate moment to kick the matter the noble Lord wishes to discuss round the room a little.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Quite right.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: We were discussing Amendment No. 41. As I said, we would prefer a straight edge to make the position clear to everyone. We do not want problems of obfuscation, with people cynically manipulating the situation or with the "good man" being manipulated. We should like to return to the matter but, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 [Provisional arrest]:
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbottsmoved Amendment No. 43:
  Page 4, line 3, leave out "reason to believe" and insert "reasonable grounds for believing"
  The noble Lord said: Clause 5 concerns provisional arrest which my noble friend Lord Lamont just mentioned. Amendment No. 43 seeks to delete the words "reason to believe" in subsection (1) of Clause 5 and replace them with "reasonable grounds for believing".
  Amendment No. 149, which is grouped with Amendment No. 43, has exactly the same impact in Part 2 of the Bill as subsection (2) of Clause 70, which deals with category 2 country arrests.
  Amendments Nos. 43 and 149 were proposed to us by the Law Society of Scotland. Essentially they aim to change the test of whether a provisional arrest should be made from subjective to objective grounds.
  The Bill as presently drafted states that if a constable "has reason to believe" that a Part 1 warrant has already been "or will be" issued, he may make an arrest. There are no details of what evidence or grounds he must have to support his belief. It is, essentially, a subjective test.
  Similarly, as currently drafted, under Clause 70 a judge may issue a warrant on a subjective assessment of the circumstances. Given the importance of the decision being taken, the Law Society of Scotland believes that an objective test is more appropriate. It believes that the phrase "reasonable grounds"

  GC 337
  provides a much firmer protection for the person subject to the provisional warrant.
  As has been said, provisional warrants are clearly a necessary instrument to provide in the Bill but we need to make sure that, due to their "provisional" nature, we add the necessary safeguards to ensure that they are used appropriately. I beg to move.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: There was I just now trying to save my noble friend the Minister—I had not realised that he is not present, but I shall explain the matter anyway—from showing his hand too early. We are now discussing the amendments to Clause 5 that raise a very serious matter. Each word must be looked at very carefully.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: When the noble Lord says that we are now discussing the matter, may I point out that we were previously when I raised the issue?
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I do not want to quarrel with the noble Lord about procedure. Let us look at what we are now on. We are now on Clause 5. Both Amendments No. 43 and 44 do indeed raise the issue on which my noble friend Lord Filkin has said more than once, I believe, that people get paranoid—and that is arrest by foreign police.
  One possibility is that, under Clause 5, the British constable acts merely as an arm of the foreign police—taking into account the further provision in Amendment No. 46, which the Minister will move. I am not trying to anticipate the debate, but it is fair to the Government to take Amendment No. 46 into account. Either they say that where you think this is a judicial authority of the issuing country and have reason to believe that a warrant has been issued, or will be issued, then you must simply execute the whole thing, or else some amendments will be accepted that tell us that you must have some reasonable grounds for your belief. Those amendments would also tell us that you must have reasonable grounds to believe that such a warrant has been issued by the right people, and, I would have hoped, within the general compass of the scheme. In other words, there is a big distinction in this provisional arrest scheme, which, in a sense, is at the heart of the matter, because that will often be the situation.
  Either you say that, where you have reason to think that there will be something of this sort, you must just do it, or else you must introduce safeguards. Therefore, although I do not anticipate my arguments on Amendment No. 44, Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 go very much together in the direction of introducing more safeguards. So this raises the issue of simply doing what the issuing authority and, in effect, the foreign police force want to do or introducing greater protection for civil liberties. The issue has arisen so often today that the balance the Government are striking is wrong. I would have thought that at least Amendment No. 43—and, I hope, Amendment No. 44—would be acceptable to the Government when they consider the matter.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Goodhart: The name of my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie is attached to these amendments because they were originally suggested by the Law Society of Scotland. They are intended to be of general, not merely Scottish, application. Having looked at the matter again, so far as concerns Amendment No. 43, I find a little difficulty in seeing the difference between "reason to believe" and "reasonable grounds for believing".
  However, Amendment No. 149 raises important issues, as Clause 70 states:
  "The judge may issue a warrant for the arrest of the person whose extradition is requested if it appears to the judge that—
  (a) the offence…is an extradition offence"
  and so on, and that the evidence would justify the issue of a warrant. There is a real difference in substance. If the test is whether it appears to the judge, the issue is subjective and the decision cannot be reviewed unless the judge's decision is clearly unreasonable. If the test is whether the judge has reasonable grounds for believing, an appellate court could take its own decision on whether there were reasonable grounds for believing what the judge believed. There is, therefore, a difference in substance. Given the consequences of extradition, it would perhaps be desirable to make clear that in Clause 70 the test required is objective, not merely subjective.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I am bound to say that both Amendments Nos. 43 and 149 are precisely the same. The Court of Appeal can look at whether a judge has behaved sensibly. I cannot see any difference between Amendment No. 43, which the noble Lord has said is perfectly OK, and Amendment No. 149. It is not as though there would not be checks; there would be. For that reason, we are arguing about something very unreal.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My noble friend probably made this point, but I wish to clarify that, in suggesting the wording, the Law Society of Scotland is saying that in Scots law "reasonable grounds" is considered an objective criterion whereas "reason to believe" is less so. Therefore, the society thinks that "reasonable grounds" is crisper, more solid and better grounds. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, the wording applies to the whole United Kingdom; it is not intended to be a Scottish issue.
  We have heard from distinguished lawyers south of the Border that they do not see the point of that. I can understand that, because they are accustomed to the other phraseology. It is a matter of wording. It is an interesting point, but it is not an enormous one, as my noble friend would probably agree.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has stimulated an interesting, diverging debate. There is value in that. I tremble in trepidation of tackling Scots law, particularly given that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, is a Member of the

  GC 339
  Committee. I shall run through the points that I think need to be considered. Some of them have already been made.
  I shall deal first with Amendment No. 43, which concerns provisional arrest under Part 1 of the Bill. Clause 5 currently provides that a police or customs officer may arrest a person without a warrant if,
  "he has reason to believe"
  that a Part 1 warrant has been, or will shortly be, issued in respect of that person. The amendment would change the wording of the clause, requiring the arresting officer to have "reasonable grounds for believing"—
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I thank the Minister for giving way. He inserted a very important word, "shortly", between "will" and "be". There is no "shortly" in the Bill. The provision contains the words "will be", not "will shortly be". It would be wrong for the Committee to allow that to go unchecked, as it makes quite a different inference on what we are talking about.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Does the Minister's brief contain the word "shortly" or did he just say the word?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: Actually, the brief contains the word "shortly".
  Noble Lords: Oh!
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: However, I have taken advice, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots, is right. He was right to pull me up.
  Amendment No. 43 would change the wording of Clause 5 to,
  "have reasonable grounds for believing"
  that a Part 1 warrant would be forthcoming.
  The last thing that I wish to do at this stage is to become embroiled in a discussion on semantics, but I have little space in this argument to do otherwise. I ask the Committee to consider how the approach might work. If I have reasonable grounds for believing that a warrant will be issued, then I have reason to believe that that will he the case. If I do not have reasonable grounds, I do not have reason to believe that it will be so. Although that reasoning may seem slightly facile, the point it illustrates is that, regardless of the exact formulation of words, the provisions would have the same effect with or without the amendment. That was the point that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made. I think that it is fair to say that I do not disagree with the sentiment of the amendment, but I suggest that it is unnecessary. There is already provision in the Bill that will have the same effect.
  Amendment No. 149 touches on the issue of an arrest warrant in this country pursuant to a "full"—that is to say, not provisional—extradition request under Part 2 of the Bill. Clause 70 currently provides for a warrant to be issued if it appears to the judge that extradition is requested in respect of an extradition offence and there is sufficient evidence and information to justify the issue of a warrant. The
  GC 340
  amendment would provide that the judge should have "reasonable grounds for believing" the conditions are met before he could issue a warrant. Although the difference in the wording here may be more obvious than in the previous amendment, it will not surprise Members of the Committee to hear that my answer to this amendment is the same.
  Let us try to suspend reality and assume that I am judge—I am no longer Lord Bassam; I am Judge Bassam. I know that it is quite hard to conjure up different images of me wearing wigs and so on, but let us make that assumption. I will issue an arrest warrant only if it appears to me that the necessary conditions are met. The decision is for me, the judge, to take, based on the information before me. I can decide that the conditions appear to be met only if there is good reason for me to believe that to be true. If there were no reasonable grounds to believe that to be the case, it could not, by definition, appear to me to be true. Again, I am trying to demonstrate that, in spite of the different words, the Bill already does what the amendment seeks.
  In drawing up Clause 70 and similar provisions in the Bill, it is clear that the wording has a history. It was taken from the drafting of the existing legislation on the subject. The phrase,
  "if it appears to be"
  is used throughout the Extradition Act 1989. Although there are many things in that statute that the Government seek to change, this form of words is not one of them. The meaning and intention of the provision is clear: those involved in extradition understand what decision is to be made and on what basis.
  We are agreed on what we expect these provisions to achieve. I hope that Members of the Committee will accept the assurance that we can meet those expectations with the Bill as it is drafted. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendments in the light of that explanation.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: If the Minister were Sheriff Bassam, I believe that he would be very glad to have the aide memoire of the words that the sheriff must have reasonable grounds. He would know that he had to have reason and not just be swayed by an interesting argument.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Perhaps the Minister will want to reflect again when he reads Hansard. There is a difference between having a reason to believe something and having reasonable grounds to believe something. I might believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, is my cousin because, from the age of six months onwards, an aunt told me that his father was my father's brother. I find out that that is false. I would have thought that anyway, because my aunts were very curious people and I did not believe everything that they told me. It would not be reasonable, if it became a serious matter, just to believe what your aunt had told you from the age of six months onwards. It would be reasonable to make a little inquiry to find out more about the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, to see if he really

  GC 341
  was my cousin. It would not take very long, but there is a difference between having a reason to believe and having reasonable grounds to believe.
  I cannot understand why the Minister resists the idea that the person committing the extremely serious step of provisionally arresting someone on the say-so of someone else abroad. I have been trying to jog my memory as to whether his argument has an undistributed middle or some rule about fallacious reasoning, but it is wrong. In my submission, surely that is wrong. A "reason to believe" is not the same as "reasonable grounds" to believe. When there is a provisional arrest, we should begin the notion of protection by saying that there must be "reasonable grounds". What is wrong with that?
  7 p.m.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: "Reason to believe" implies any reason to believe—a slight reason as opposed to a significant reason. "Reasonable grounds" implies looking at something in the round—at all the evidence available and whether the conclusion is reasonable. To me, that is the difference between the two phrases. Respectfully, I do not agree with those who think that there is no difference. It is pretty clear what the difference is, as well exposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn.
  I am puzzled by the provisional arrest requirement. The Minister said that the wording was not being altered. Will he clarify whether provisional arrest is already allowed for under the Extradition Act? He is consulting advisers, who are nodding, so perhaps we know the answer already. As said by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, it seems very extraordinary to allow that. We are told all the time that it is for only very serious offences, yet we know that the provisions of the arrest warrant apply to offences that are not the most serious—not only to murder and terrorism.
  It is worth observing that there have been very large numbers of arrests in this country of people on terrorist offences in the past few months, but so far as I am aware only one of them has been charged. We have to bear in mind the rights of those arrested for terrorism as well. There has been a certain amount of trigger-happy locking-up of people in recent months, which has caused some disquiet.
  If we are to have the provision, the Minister ought to say what sort of evidence would be relevant. Will it be simply the facts from a policeman in another country? Will there be any reference to a domestic warrant being in issue in that country already? Will the officer have to be senior? What sort of grounds are relevant? The Minister is again consulting his advisers, so perhaps we can hear about that.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall first answer the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. The provisional arrest has been there since 1870. What we seek to do in the Bill is already in the 1989 legislation. I cannot quite remember what he was doing at that stage, as my memory is not absolute on such matters—perhaps he was First Secretary to the Treasury—but he was part
  GC 342
  of the government who put that important legislation through. At that stage, he clearly would have supported it, believing it to be proper and important.
  The test that was applied then is exactly the same as is intended to be applied now. The judgment will have to be made by the judge as it appears to him—that is the expression used in the 1989 Act—based on sufficient evidence and information to justify the issue of the warrant. There must be sufficient evidence and information to justify the issue of the warrant. That is how the provision is intended to operate.
  The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, wanted to move from what he described as a subjective assessment to a more objective test. The Committee heard from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that "reason to believe" is, in effect, that larger element of objectivity that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, was after. I have argued that Amendment No. 149, with which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, had some concerns and doubts, is in effect exactly the same and falls within exactly the same range of argumentation as Amendment No. 43.
  I appreciate that Members of the Committee will not be entirely satisfied. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, is of course right to argue that we should have protection for civil liberties. We feel that we have struck the right balance. The current legislation has worked extremely well. I have not had a chorus of complaints that it is faulty or defective in terms of how it operates. We simply seek to replicate it in this legislation, and make sure that it works well and effectively for the public's protection from people committing a range of very serious offences. In the main, that is where the measures will apply.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I appreciate that some provisions may have been there since 1989, or 1899 for all I know, but that does not justify them if they are based on a fallacy. Is the Minister making a Pepper v Hart statement that having a "reason to believe" means having "reasonable grounds" to believe? That is a very serious matter. Do we have ministerial assurance that "reason to believe" has the same meaning as "reasonable grounds" to believe? He has already supported the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, with whom I disagree on the point. They do not mean the same thing. If the Minister is saying that they do, we had better have a ministerial statement to that effect. We shall then know how to interpret the Bill, and it will have to be amended on Report.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall not fall into the trap of making such a ministerial statement. That would not be right. I have made the argument and acknowledged the importance of the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. Obviously there is a dispute in the Committee as to what is right. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, effectively supported the Government's position. I think that we have got the balance right. I made it clear that there had to be sufficient evidence and information and an element of

  GC 343
  objectivity—a reason based on fact—to ensure that a warrant could be justified in the circumstances. That is our case.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am sorry, but that really will not do. If I promise not to quote the Minister when I am instructed in relevant action, so that we do not have a Pepper v Hart statement, can I first quote what he just said? I believe that he said—we shall see it in Hansard; I apologise if I am wrong—that a "reason to believe" means a reason founded on fact. That does not include a reason founded on falsity. The Minister is saying that "reason to believe" in this clause does not include reasons based on something that is not a fact—something that is wrong. The reason is based on "reasonable grounds". If it is based on fact, it is not just any old reason but a special sort of reason.
  I promised not to quote my noble friend when I was instructed on the matter, but I cannot give any assurance to him that some other counsel may not do so. I am not trying to get him on the hop in some ill-judged assurance, I promise. I am asking him to give us an assurance that he will consider the simple proposition that having a "reason to believe" is, in ordinary English, not the same as having "reasonable grounds" to believe. If he says that they are the same, we had better come back to the matter to see whether the words should not be adjusted. That is a reasonable proposition to put to him, and he has not addressed the point so far, except in so far as he says that in this special case a reason means a reason based on fact.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: As ever, the noble Lord has vigorously pursued the point in his forensic way. I am not trying to flatter him; I do not need to. He makes a very good case based on his argumentation. I have set out our position very clearly. No reasonable judge would want to make a decision based on falsity, which was the proposition towards which the noble Lord tempted me. Obviously they have to base decisions on there being sufficient evidence and information to issue the warrant. That is how the provision has worked in the past, and it is how we envisage it working in future.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: As the Minister pointed out, I began by saying that we were trying to move a subjective test to an objective test on "reason to believe" and "reasonable grounds for believing". I was disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, as an eminent jurist, shot my argument full of holes, and was then relieved to be supported by the noble Lords, Lord Wedderburn and Lord Lamont.
  The Minister gave the game away when he inserted "shortly". Later, when he talked about "reason", he kept inserting "good". I did not pull him up at the time, but readers of Hansard will see that he kept saying "good reason". He was always trying to shift the ground ever so slightly with such words, and that is not good enough.
  GC 344
  We simply cannot have a situation where, on half the Bill, we pray in aid the 1870 Act and the 1989 Act as holy writ, while, on the rest of the Bill, we say that that they are absolute rubbish, hopeless and that we should get rid of them.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: That is almost to suggest that no piece of legislation is beyond improvement. Of course what we are trying to do—what the Committee is trying to do—is improve the quality of the legislation. I cannot take that point.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: On Amendment No. 149, the Minister said that we were bringing forward concepts from 1870 and wording from 1989. That was in respect of Part 2 and the provisions were therefore not capable of being improved. However, in respect of Clause 5, in Part I, the whole history of the activity is to be swept away in favour of a completely new circumstance. We need to come back to that and, frankly, we shall do so on Report. In the Committee, there is no confidence that "reason to believe" gives sufficient safety for the important matter of a provisional arrest.
  We will want to seek either a change in the Bill, or a statement of the sort that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, invited the Minister to make. I quite understand that he did not want to make it on the wing this afternoon, but he will have a few weeks—perhaps even a few months—to consider whether he can make it, in which case we will no doubt feel reassured. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbottsmoved Amendment No. 44:
  Page 4, line 4, leave out "or will be"
  The noble Lord said: This is the second barrel in the gun. We are in Clause 5 on the provisional arrest again, and debating the "will be" issue. We have been through a number of the arguments on the previous group of amendments and, without rehashing them all, it seems reckless to say that someone may take a subjective decision about a future warrant, possibly hypothetical, and on that basis arrest a British citizen. We need some explanation from the Minister as to why the provision is appropriate. At the same time, we need an example of circumstances in which it would be of invaluable and proper assistance to the authorities. It is hard for me to think of circumstances in which, were our amendment accepted, a criminal could evade justice.
  The summary of our position is that an arrest can now take place without a warrant, with the arresting officer having "reason to believe" that a warrant will be issued. Someone does not have to be shown the warrant unless he asks for it. He can be held for 48 hours—two days—before he appears in front of a judge. Several times at Second Reading and in Committee, the Minister has said, "We are talking about a balance. We are balancing the rights of the citizen and the need to make sure that the guilty do not go unpunished". In the circumstances where we are talking about a provisional—
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My noble friend keeps talking about a balance, but I do not see any balance in the Bill. Can my noble friend name one thing that the Bill does to strengthen the rights of the accused?
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I was not saying that. If I had been able to finish my last sentence, I would have said that the balance was not being struck here at all. In the case of a provisional warrant, we are not striking the right balance; the balance is unfair and skewed against people of this country. Therefore, the words should be struck out. I beg to move.
  Lord Goodhart: The amendment should be supported. When a Part 1 warrant has been issued and there is reason to believe that the information has been provided to the effect that a Part I warrant has been issued, it is legitimate to make a provisional arrest. However, I am concerned about situations in which there is only a belief that a provisional warrant will be issued. At that stage, there is no warrant and no evidence before the judge, except the information that a warrant is to be issued.
  If one compares that situation with the provisional arrest under the category 2 procedure, which is dealt with in Clause 72, one finds a somewhat different situation. The judge in that case can proceed with issuing a provisional warrant only if, under subsections (3) and (4), he has evidence before him to justify the issue of a warrant for the arrest of that person. In other words, he must have the prima facie evidence in front of him, which must have been supplied by the territory that seeks the extradition. It is not sufficient in that case to say that that judge believes that such evidence will be provided.
  The two measures are not in line with each other. The equivalent would be to say that a provisional arrest can be made under Part 1 if it is known that a Part 1 warrant has been issued—that, even if it has not got to the United Kingdom yet, it is known to be on its way. To say that all that is needed is information that a Part 1 warrant is going to be issued is not good enough. I support the amendment.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I support the amendment, at any rate contingently. The provisional arrest measure presumably relates to people who are passing through and have to be got quickly. I am in favour of catching criminals—let us have no nonsense about that. There are parts of the Bill where the Government have tried to put a bit of balance in, such as the provisions relating to the Convention on Human Rights—although we shall come to the defects of that. However, this clause represents the worst attack of vertigo that Ministers have had.
  Let me put the case at its very lowest to my noble friends the Ministers, and hope that there is no heading of "Resist absolutely to the death", as we saw earlier this afternoon. We also hope that there are no words written in—that came as a great shock to me, I must admit.
  GC 346
  The Minister can either have "reason" or "will be". If he had accepted "reasonable grounds", I would have accepted that I might not like it when it happened, but that there was some sort of a case for going after someone who was at Prestwick for only a few hours. I could see a case for doing that if it were done on the basis that the arrest warrant had not arrived from the issuing authority but there would be one, and there were reasonable grounds.
  However, the Minister resisted "reasonable grounds"—unless we can get "reasonable grounds" out of "reason", which he resisted putting on record. The clause says that any old reason will do. To have any old reason to believe that the "judicial authority"—which the Government will insert in the clause—will issue the warrant is really so unbalanced that, with the greatest respect, it shows a defect of understanding of what is being urged on Ministers.
  I urge my noble friend the Minister to say that, in reconsidering the matters under the last amendment, he will balance the provisions under this amendment and come up with some slightly different formula. It should at least require that the person provisionally arrested, who under these provisions will not see anything at all, will be arrested by someone with reasonable grounds to believe that the process will be properly effectuated. If not, the person making the arrest should have a reason, untrammelled, that there has been a warrant issued. The Minister really cannot have both.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made a rather devastating point about the contrast between the treatment of Part 1 and Part 2 countries. That is one of the puzzles of the Bill—why there is an entirely different philosophy between Part 1 and Part 2. Many people have argued that our systems of law have more in common with those of the United States than those of the European Union. I do not know whether I have the Minister's attention—perhaps I should sit down while he consults his officials.
  Many of us are puzzled about why the procedures that apply to Part 1 countries do not apply to the United States, for example, although the legal system in that country seems to have much in common with ours. As an opponent of capital punishment, I entirely accept that there must be an exception for offences that are capital. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is powerful: if there is going to be a provisional arrest and evidence is required for a category 2 country, evidence should be required for the category 1 country as well.
  Clause 72(4) has two types of evidence. The first is,
  "evidence that would justify the issue of a warrant for the arrest of a person",
  if the person had been accused. The second type is when a person has actually been convicted of an offence and has somehow escaped from prison or escaped going to prison. That is obviously a very different category. Will the Minister comment on that?

  GC 347
  I refer again to a point that I made earlier. I am puzzled by the sort of evidence that a person could have that a warrant would be issued. A warrant requires judicial confirmation. Surely, there must be some rules for what justifies reasonable grounds for arresting a person without a judicial authority.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is only right that I acknowledge that the drafting of the clause may at first sight seem slightly odd, allowing officers to arrest a person purely if they have reason to believe that a warrant will be issued, and not just if they believe that a warrant has been issued. I acknowledge that point. However, it is not hard to consider an example—which the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, was seeking—where such a power would be useful and, I would suggest, absolutely necessary.
  The provision will hardly ever be used. That is the point. It is in those situations of extremis in terms of law enforcement that the provision would be called on.
  I shall give some life to the argument by providing an example. Let us imagine that someone commits a bank robbery in Rouen and makes his way to a hovercraft in Calais just before the French police can catch up with him, or someone commits a terrorist outrage in Paris and the police are well aware that the person whom they are pursuing is making his way out of the country to the United Kingdom. In those circumstances, the French police might very well telephone their counterparts in Dover and seek to have the person detained on arrival.
  The provision would be used in exactly that sort of circumstance, which will occur very infrequently. That needs bearing in mind. The police would doubtless confirm that they would go to a magistrate to seek a European arrest warrant. At the moment when the person arrives in the United Kingdom, the Kent police would have every reason to believe that a European arrest warrant would be issued, though not that it had been issued.
  The question that Members of the Committee should ask is this: "Do we believe that in such cases such people should be arrested?" Common sense dictates that they should.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am sure that the Minister is aware that the examples that he has given are cases in which there are very good reasonable grounds for a belief that the issue of a warrant is imminent. However, could he give us an example where he could continue to justify keeping the words "will be" but where the reason is a false reason and the Kent police are totally misled that a warrant will be issued?
  Of course, I understand the Minister's examples. Someone has committed an outrageous act. That is perfectly clear, and there are reasonable grounds for believing that has happened and that the warrant will be issued. That is fine. The Minister can either have
  GC 348
  "reason" in the clause, or he can have "will be". Will he give an example where any old reason is linked with "will be" and justify that?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not going to do that because, as I have already explained, the provision will be used only in a few instances.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: That does not matter.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: It does matter, because if we do not have that wording in the legislation, it will create an almost insurmountable barrier for law enforcement agencies in the circumstances that I have described. If they believe that a warrant will he issued, they are obviously perfectly able to apprehend and detain someone arriving in this country when they have good knowledge. That is extremely important. It is common sense that they should have that facility. If they do not, the warrant may be issued only when there is confirmation and the proceeds of the crime may have disappeared. That could be the consequence of the amendment.
  The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has said that he believes in law enforcement and wants to ensure that serious criminals are apprehended. In those circumstances, the provision is important.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Why could the law not be framed so that provisional arrest could apply only to very serious crimes such as terrorism or murder? The Minister keeps saying that the provision will be only rarely used, but the significance of the arrest warrant is that it applies to many offences that are not regarded as serious. Some of us object to that balance—the freedom to extradite someone to another country for relatively minor offences. I have made the point again and again that we should bear in mind the way in which justice works; a person facing legal procedures in another country is at a natural disadvantage. The Minister always wants to concentrate on murder and terrorism, but our argument is actually about the lesser offences.
  7.30 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: Will the noble Lord take this point? How many cases has he come across in which a situation such as he describes has been abused in the past? Frankly, I cannot see that there have been such situations. In fact, something not too dissimilar to these provisions currently operates.
  I have said clearly to the Committee that the measure will be used only in very few circumstances—hardly ever—and only when an extreme outrage has been committed and it is plain that an arrest warrant will be issued.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: That is not what the Bill says—it does not say that the provision is only for serious offences. Furthermore, what makes the situation different is that extradition will be much easier. It will apply also to offences that are not offences in British law. The principle of double criminality is being abolished.

  GC 349
  It is all very well for the Minister to shake his head and say that it is all very theoretical, but we know what can happen. People suddenly turn around and say, "Oh my goodness, we've got to change the law because such and such has happened and we never thought it would be used in this way". The Minister gives an example of someone who has robbed a bank, but let us suppose that some football fans behave very badly and in a xenophobic way at a football match. The police pursue them, trying to arrest them, but the fans get on the ferry and come back. Will they be placed under provisional arrest in Canterbury, for example, when they arrive after crossing the Channel?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: It depends on the circumstances of the case. The noble Lord is trying to construct a broader case based on some fallacious thinking. Let us focus on some practicalities. If the full papers are not produced at a hearing within 48 hours of the arrest, the person must be discharged. That means that there is obviously a safeguard.
  Lord Goodhart: Is there anything in Clauses 5 and 6 to prevent the following scenario from happening? The French authorities ring up Inspector Knacker of the Yard and say, "Will you arrest this man? We promise that we will get you the papers within 48 hours". The inspector arrests the man, the French authorities fail to get the papers there within 48 hours and the man has to be discharged. However, just before he is discharged, the French ring up Inspector Knacker and say, "Look, I'm sorry we haven't made it in time, but we absolutely promise you that we will get it to you in another 48 hours, so please arrest this man again, as soon as he is discharged". Is there anything in the Bill to prevent that from happening? Is it contemplated that that is permissible?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My understanding of the clause is that that will not do.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Why?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: Because the authorities will not have conformed with that part of the legislation and the person will have to be discharged. If the papers are not properly there within that 48-hour period, the person will have to be discharged.
  Lord Goodhart: The person could be discharged, but what is to prevent him from being re-arrested if there is a promise that the papers will be there within the next 48 hours from then?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: In those circumstances, my understanding is that the promise will not do. The noble Lord has raised a good question; clearly, we need to be absolutely clear about it and we will seek to clarify the matter before we move on to the next stage of the legislation.
  This is an important part of the legislation for us to retain. I have made the case that it will be used only in exceptional circumstances. It will be very rarely used, but the law enforcement agencies clearly believe that it
  GC 350
  is important, and we as a Government believe that it is important. In the kinds of cases that I have described, it will be very important indeed. We are not dealing only with people moving from France or from mainland Europe over here. It is worth remembering that we also have a land border, and a scenario could well occur with someone crossing the border from the Republic of Ireland. In those circumstances, if a particular outrage had been committed and there was a need for law enforcement to act swiftly, the words in the Bill would have a real meaning and significance.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Why not then draft the legislation so that these powers apply to serious offences such as terrorism and murder?
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before my noble friend the Minister concludes, why does he not go away and draft what he says he wants? The provision at present allows someone to be unjustly, unfairly, improperly and provisionally arrested, re-arrested and re-arrested. With the greatest respect, it appals me that a Labour Minister does not seem to care that one individual can suffer that fate.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I, like all members of the Labour Party, care a great deal about people's civil liberties. I do not take offence at the noble Lord's concern about those things, because he clearly shares my concerns as well. However, he made the point earlier that we have the responsibility to ensure that we protect the public from serious criminals.
  The challenge has been made that we should restrict the measure to serious criminal acts. There may well be other criminal acts of importance and significance in which it is right to use the facility that this particular part of the legislation provides to law enforcement agencies.
  I have made the case clearly, in terms of the practical effect of using the law and its impact on real people in real circumstances. I made the point very clearly that there will probably be very limited circumstances in which it will need to be used, when law enforcement agencies will need to move quickly. However, it is important that the provision is there.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: The hour is late, but I should like to say three things. The debate that we have had on this group of amendments underlines why my party believes that the Part 1 arrest warrant is not needed. We believe that what can be achieved should be achieved through Part 2. Most of the safeguards that have been requested by Members of the Committee are available in Part 2. Part 1 is superfluous and gets the balance wrong. We have suggested that in extremis a major offence such as terrorism could be included, but that only shows why Part 1 is misconceived.
  The Minister gave the game away when he used the word "shortly". That is how his Home Office team thinks about matters such as these; it must always he "shortly" and quick, and we have seen why it will not

  GC 351
  necessarily be quick. I will be interested to see whether the Government introduce an amendment that says "shortly". That would be interesting.
  The Minister told the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, that the measure would be used infrequently. However, limes change and new Ministers come along. We are supposed to be making sure that we look after and guard civil liberties. The balance is all over the place as regards the provisional arrest. I hope that
  GC 352
  the Minister will go away and think about how we can get the measure into better shape before Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Filkin: This might be a convenient moment to propose that the Committee adjourns until tomorrow at 3.45 p.m.
  The Committee adjourned at twenty-two minutes before eight o'clock.

  Northern Ireland: Buses
  Northern Ireland: Buses
  Northern Ireland: Planning Appeals and Approvals
  Northern Ireland: Planning Appeals and Approvals
  PEACE II Funding
  PEACE II Funding
  SCOPE Programmed
  SCOPE Programmed
  Northern Ireland Act 2000: Section 5
  Northern Ireland Act 2000: Section 5
  Gocean Lodge Development Scheme
  Gocean Lodge Development Scheme
  The Lord Chancellor
  The Lord Chancellor
  Right-to-Buy Scheme
  Right-to-Buy Scheme
  Sexual Abuse of Minors: Standard of Proof
  Sexual Abuse of Minors: Standard of Proof
  House of Lords: Communications Monitoring
  House of Lords: Communications Monitoring
  Entitlement Cards: Stand Website Submissions
  Entitlement Cards: Stand Website Submissions
  Armed Forces: Campaign Medal for Service in Afghanistan
  Armed Forces: Campaign Medal for Service in Afghanistan
  Defence Storage and Distribution Agency
  Defence Storage and Distribution Agency
  Pilot Training
  Pilot Training
  British Forces Post Office
  British Forces Post Office
  Defence Transport and Movements Agency
  Defence Transport and Movements Agency
  Free and Open Source Software Foundation in Africa
  Free and Open Source Software Foundation in Africa
  Middle East and North Africa: UK Contributions to EU Assistance Programmes
  Middle East and North Africa: UK Contributions to EU Assistance Programmes
  Housing Benefit Sanctions and Anti-social Behaviour
  Housing Benefit Sanctions and Anti-social Behaviour
  Benefit Sanctions: Hospital Admissions and Imprisonment
  Benefit Sanctions: Hospital Admissions and Imprisonment
  University Entrants: Socio-economic Classification
  University Entrants: Socio-economic Classification
  EU Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council, 5 and 6 June
  EU Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council, 5 and 6 June
  Equality and Diversity: Consultation Responses
  Equality and Diversity: Consultation Responses
  Accidental Injury Surveillance
  Accidental Injury Surveillance
  IT Disposal in Government Departments
  IT Disposal in Government Departments
  Export Controls
  Export Controls
  Genetically Modified Crops
  Genetically Modified Crops
  Technetium-99: Discharge into Irish Sea
  Technetium-99: Discharge into Irish Sea
  Depleted Uranium
  Depleted Uranium
  NHS Staff: Flexible Retirement
  NHS Staff: Flexible Retirement
  Pro-life Groups: EU Monitoring
  Pro-life Groups: EU Monitoring
  NHS National Programme for Information Technology
  NHS National Programme for Information Technology
  NHS Electronic Patient Records
  NHS Electronic Patient Records
  Neurology Registrars
  Neurology Registrars
  Haemophiliac Patients: Access to Medical Records
  Haemophiliac Patients: Access to Medical Records
  Blood Products: Review
  Blood Products: Review
  Healthcare Regulation, Audit and Inspection
  Healthcare Regulation, Audit and Inspection
  Postgraduate Medical Education
  Postgraduate Medical Education
  Food Safety Act 1990: Water Supply'
  Food Safety Act 1990: Water Supply'